UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Physics is God?

A repeat airing [6/2/16] about the Big Bang on Science Channel’s How the Universe Works, a physicist (not Michio Kaku, who was prominent in the show) said “It [the Big Bang] is almost magic -- the key word is almost. It's allowed by the laws of physics.”

That is as close to a religious statement, without being intently religious related, as one might find in a holy text.

But what struck me, and I’ve commented on this before, is that the scientists talking about the Big Bang (not Michio Kaku however) had a look in their eyes and gesticulations that were reminiscent of religious ecstats, some even appearing delusional with fanatic glee.

(When I visited Eloise Hospital – a Wayne County, Michigan hospital for the insane – during my psychology training, I saw those same eyes and gestures aplenty, among the “residents” of the facility.)

That creation could arise ex nihilo is beyond science. It’s a possibility if we have a God (or Supreme Intelligence) in charge of existence, or if the Universe and all of reality is a simulation, happening at the whim of what we could call a Super Programmer, or God.

I’m asking you to seek out the show, online, to see what I’m getting at.

The kind of irrational – and it is irrational – thinking provided by astrophysicists, as exampled in the Science program is what drove me from Astrophysics in college.

The premise – creation from nothing – is flawed, much as schizophrenic premises are flawed but often seem to have a logical following if one accepts the flawed premise, one of the fallacies of logic, as UFO notable Richard Hall always bemoaned, about the thinking of UFO buffs at UFO UpDates and elsewhere.

But I’ll take a cockamamie stance from a ufologist long before I’ll take the ravings of cosmologists about the Big Bang.



  • Could be profound thinking for sure: The Question. It goes back to the separation of faith and science. I promise to review it.

    If elements react with each other to form compounds that, in turn, react with other compounds repeatedly in even a possible progression to a self-sustaining state then science has it. If that is not reasonable then, for 'God's sake' what?

    As the popular refrain goes, "Don't take me there."


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Thursday, June 02, 2016  

  • The concept of Planck Time, allowing the formation of matter without mass and everything else inside the first second, of creation from nothing is insanity on the face of it.

    As much as I hate to admit it, there has to be a God [defined in a number of ways].

    Of course, this has little or nothing to do with UFOs, but there it is.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 02, 2016  

  • If there is a God, then who created Her?
    God and/or gods are invented by the religious to explain what is probably unexplainable. Due to your mainly European fundamentalist religious origins, Americans seem particularly rusted on to this mindset.

    By Blogger Dave Down Under, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • The concept of God is not to "explain what is probably not explainable".

    In fact, if you look at all of today's legitimate religions (not UFO religions) they are based on (if not directly identical to) their ancient counterparts.

    God is the supreme being that made everything, including humans (by choice not by accident).

    Even Rome abandoned a pantheon of gods in favor of one God.

    Faith in one's religion is not about explaining the fundamentals of science, but the pursuit of a relationship with your maker.

    Physics isn't God, but he sure did make physics a part of his creation.

    I feel too often people claim there is conflict between religion and science when none really exists. Science is the study of how God assembled his creation. It's there for us to explore and to ponder.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Brian..

    I'd like to make clear that I use the word God as a short cut sobriquet for the intelligent force -- Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still called it the Almighty Spirit -- that seems to have created existence.

    It's much easier, for me, to see an intelligence behind reality -- whatever that reality may be.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • RR's quotation is from Season 3 Episode 4, "First Second of the Big Bang," for those who want to watch. I'll download and watch but such programs are most often far too general to shed any new light on a subject that has rightly held the popular imagination for decades. The fact that we can and do know such things is an absolute wonder in itself, without our knowing it would be nothing but a universe of random cosmic violence.

    The Big Bang is one of the most thoroughly tested and repeatedly confirmed theories in all of science, human knowledge. The evidence is simply overwhelming: the mutual recession of the galaxies, red-shift increasing with distance, the expansion of the Universe, inflation increasing with time, the cosmic microwave background radiation, newly confirmed gravitational waves, the formation of the galaxies, star formation, the abundances of elements, the structural and elemental homogeneity at all scales of all of spacetime and entropy--most definitely and without question--indicate a singular creation event erupting from a greater state of order, the Singularity.

    String theory imagines the Big Bang as the result of the collision between ultramacroscopic branes in higher-dimensional spacetime. Such collisions might be common events in the infinite Multiverse of shifting branes and sparkling universes. In such a scenario where an infinity of universes are created, they might just as easily be instantly destroyed.


    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • But Zoam...

    Something cannot be created from nothing, It just can't, even in the (discarded) brane-worlds.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • I believe that I've referenced this in a past comment, but a good read on the debate between the Big Bang and Steady State theories:

    Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe, by Simon Singh, published by Harper Perennial, 2004.

    Singh discusses the topic going back to the Greeks. It's an easy and good read, but covers the science and physics concerning both models.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Tim:

    I just ordered this from Amazon....it better promote the Steady State Theory....the Big Bang thing is utterly incredulous.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Singh is a Big Bang proponent, but he gives the Steady State it's proper due. He doesn't white wash it.

    I believe that you'll find a lot of useful info and history concerning the scientific debate that ensued.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Accepting the Big Bang as fact, as I do (as does virtually all of science, as Zoam notes) does not preclude one from then asking why it happened. Science can tell you how, but it can't answer the metaphysical questions... and that's as it should be. The two are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Paul:

    Can you tell us how the Big Bang happened....not the vicissitudes of the aftermath but how the initial "blip" came about; that is, where did the infinitesimal speck come from?

    Zoam attributes it to a break in a multiverse opening, which is a possibility but then we'd have to go through a regression on the other side of the bubble opening, that crack in the brane....but that for another time.

    The Big Bang, as presented by physicists is a creation "ex nihilo" -- it can't be.

    To accept that view is to adopt a religious-like explanation.

    One can do that, but they'd have to bring "God" into the picture.

    The Big Bang is not a fact, by the way. It's a theory, and a goofy one on the face of it.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • Rich,

    You've missed my point. Fair enough.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • I got your point Paul...

    You accept the Big Bang, as science presents it.

    But that's a "faith" acceptance, isn't it?

    I don't accept the premise, obviously. Zoam offers a possible construct for a Big Bang, and I've even presented that possibility earlier here.

    But I was interested in why you accept the Big Bang. The why of it is fascinating, but it's the how that baffles.

    I know you have other fish to fry, but I was just curious as to why you find the Big Bang acceptable, aside from the "fact" that (pretty much) all of science accepts it.

    This comment is rhetorical.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 03, 2016  

  • RR,

    My last reading and understanding of the Big Bang was as Zoam described -at least the brane evolution, if you'll pardon my simplification, but indeed, as he begins it:
    "String theory imagines the Big Bang..."

    Imagines is the keyword there. To go beyond that is certainly a "faith" of some kind.

    Further on it from Zoam: "as the result of the collision between ultramacroscopic branes in higher-dimensional spacetime" -and acceptance of that mouthful sure makes our discussions of UAPs just tame.


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Saturday, June 04, 2016  

  • Yes, Bryan....

    The topic is complicated and abstruse, but the premise -- the opening scientific statement: A infinitesimal speck came into existence and spread in one second to the inflated-tending Universe -- tells us that the Universe began ex nihilo, came from nothing.

    That can't happen. no matter how much the scientific faithful believe it to be so.

    Something cannot spring from nothing......it can't.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, June 04, 2016  

  • > That creation could arise ex nihilo is beyond science.

    The big bang theory is not an ex nihilo theory.

    All reasoning derived from such a flawed assumption is thereby wrong.

    I am puzzled by the recent campaign to caricature scientists as just another kind of religious fanatic.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, June 05, 2016  

  • You're wrong Terry...

    The Big Bang is a prime example of ex nihilo......and I'll be presenting some quotations from real scientists who say that.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 05, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home