It's worth noting that the dominant view in cosmology is now that the Big Bang was preceded by and caused by a period of "Cosmic Inflation." Now, there is a problem of equivocation here. "Big Bang" is sometimes used to refer to a specific cosmological event, but more often in common parlance, as "the begining of the universe," a "time zero." Obviously, Cosmic Inflation is not prior to the beginning of the universe. However, certain theories in cosmology, such as Black Hole cosmology, do posit causes prior to "start" of our universe.

But the point I'd like to draw out is that the way the universe is suggests the way it came to be. The whole reason we have the Big Bang theory in the first place is because the dominant theory of an eternal universe could not explain a number of observed features of the cosmos except as "it just is."

If something is truly uncaused, happening for "no reason at all," then there would be no reason to expect it to be one way instead of any other. Yet if we take this tack, we will be left shrugging at any and all phenomena in the early universe and saying "it just is." Theorizing advances by trying to explain what we observe. For instance, there are a number of theories for why the early universe had such a phenomenally low entropy, something that seems incredibly unlikely to have occured by chance if we start with non-informative priors, such as the Principle of Indifference. There are problems with some non-informative priors, but the low entropy and other elements of the Fine Tuning Problem seem unlikely according to all of them. If one of these theories pans out, we certainly wouldn't want to rebut it with "but what is uncaused can have no explanation, so it just is."

I think we could usefully conceive of such efforts as looking at formal causality, not efficient causation. For example, if we lived in a triangular universe à la Flatland, we might come to realize that Euclid's theorems apply to our universe, to its very limits, for instance, that the angels of our universe have a certain relationship because they must have this relationship because of what our triangular cosmos is. Ontic structural realism goes in this direction and seems fairly popular in physics.

And then final cause, something brought up by religious thinkers but what secular thinkers such as Thomas Nagel also might add another level of explanation. But probably most relevant here is trying to expand our notion of efficient cause past mere temporal ordering, as Hume does. Such a vision of causation actually makes understanding any causes essentially impossible. Cause becomes mere conjunction, mere ordering. So, we might look at notions of efficient cause that are less impoverished than mere conjunction, or even mere sufficient mechanism.

You and I have always had different ideas of what is metaphysics and what isn't. It makes it hard for us to have a fruitful discussion. — T Clark

Yes, I know. For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary. And until I started posting on this forum, most of my experience was in Science and Engineering. So, as an amateur, I tend to take liberties in my usage of ancient Greek and Catholic terminology, adapting it to our modern knowledge of how the world works.

Note what the examples below have in common*1. They are all abstract concepts with no physical properties. Hence Meta-Physics (beyond substance) refers to all of the non-physical features of the cosmos that emerged from evolution only after the appearance of homo sapiens in the Holocence epoch : i.e. the Anthropocene*2. The Brain is physical, but the Mind is meta-physical. Brain is a material object, but Mind is an immaterial process : a function. Hence, meta-physical*3. By that term, I don't mean super-natural, but merely non-concrete mental abstractions, concepts, ideas, designs, etc. :nerd:

PS___ For the purposes of my personal cosmological thesis, I got my understanding of the term Metaphysics from Aristotle's book on Nature (Phusis), not from Catholic theological doctrine. In my opinion, the Greek philosopher was talking about the kind of abstract ideas in the definition below, not about religious dogma. But, if that archaic word offends you, just substitute the term Mental or Ideal in place of Metaphysical, as I often do, to make a distinction from Material or Real.


*1. Metaphysics :
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
___Oxford Dictionary

*2. What is Holocene vs Anthropocene? :
The Holocene is the only state in which we know humanity can thrive with anything like the 7.5 billion humans being supported today. We have now left the Holocene and are in the transition to the Anthropocene. This new geological epoch was named to acknowledge human influence on the state of the planet.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-1443-2_3
Note --- Until the Anthropocene the universe was all Physics all the time. Since then, Meta-Physics (human thoughts & ideas) has accelerated the evolution of our little blue planet (e.g. global warming). Did Aristotle have any inkling of where his notion of "beyond-physics" would take us? Some technical features of 21st century human culture might seem super-natural to him. But, they are merely products of post-natural (i.e. cultural) human engineering.

*3. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Not if they speculate within the normal scope of science. But, if they conjecture that action at a distance has religious connotations, or that the universe is a reification of mathematics, then, yes. — jgill

I agree. The Big Bang Theory is within the normal scope of empirical science, in that it is a summation of cosmological evidence. They tracked expanding matter backward to see where it came from. But the religious implications of a something-from-nothing beginning provoked Fred Hoyle to ridicule it with a catchy name, that unfortunately stuck.

Since then, numerous atheistic or agnostic scientists have proposed a variety of philosophical extensions of cosmology beyond the empirical evidence : Cyclical Universe ; Brane Cosmology ; Pre-Inflationary Scenarios ; Ekpyrotic Model ; Mathematical Universe models, etc. There's nothing wrong with scientists dabbling in philosophy by speculating beyond the evidence. Even Isaac Newton's Mechanistic Universe theory went beyond the scope of observational science to specify the Lawgiver.

Note the "-ism" suffix below, indicating a belief system. His mathematical theory openly postulated religious connotations. But there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the theory is useful for scientific applications. Scientists did their work for three centuries, despite Newton's theological leanings. :smile:


Newton's philosophy, or "Newtianism," emphasized a mechanistic view of the universe, governed by natural laws, and a focus on empirical observation and mathematical reasoning, as seen in his Principia Mathematica. . . .
While known for his scientific achievements, Newton was also a deeply religious man, believing in a God who created the universe and set its laws in motion
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=newton+philosophy

For those who have had formal education in philosophy, it's hard to grasp a novel definition of an old term. I have had no academic instruction (indoctrination) in philosophical vocabulary. — Gnomon

I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously.

Nuff said.

:100: :up:

I have no formal education in philosophy either. Your use of "indoctrination" in this context shows why it's hard to take your philosophical opinions seriously. — T Clark

"Indoctrination" literally means teaching or instruction. But it may be interpreted as implying that the doctrine is supposed to be accepted un-critically. So, I suppose that's why you find it hard to take seriously. Yet, if you were not indoctrinated in college, how did you arrive at your philosophical worldview?

I think you will agree, though, that most of the contentious argumentation on this forum seems to divide along the line between Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Mentalism). Would you also agree that, since the 17th century, academic philosophy has tended to favor Empiricism over the ancient focus on Rationalism. That's the academic bias I was referring to. If you believe in the metaphysics of Materialism, you may think it's biased in favor of "hard Truth" (nothing immaterial), as opposed to the "sweet lies" of Spiritualism.

However, my non-academic personal worldview is intended to include both the observed facts of Materialism and the inferred reasons of Mentalism. It's an attempt to emulate the broad scope of Aristotle's Physics, which included both observed facts of Nature, and the reasoned interpretations of Human Nature, which later came to be labeled : Metaphysics. When Ari talked about Gods, though, he was referring to universal Principles*1, not to the anthro-morphic deities of the Greek religions.

Even modern Science judges its facts according to general principles : Laws of Nature*2. But where did those universal rules come from? In the metaphysics of Materialism, they seem to be taken for granted : i.e. on Faith. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews accepted Moses' ten commandments as revelations from God.

Yet, since I have learned to doubt Blind Faith, I tend to ask embarrassing questions : such as what caused the Big Bang, and where did its Energy & Laws come from? Ironically, such inquiries into universals seem to require something like Aristotle's Gods (abstract principles) to explain them. Or to turn a blind eye to Ontological questions*3.

That may be why Materialists tend to prefer to leave the "why" questions unasked. Which allows them to adopt the condescending position of Nominalism vs Idealism*4. Is that why you find my reasoning beyond Physics, into Metaphysics, not worthy of serious consideration? :smile:


*1. Aristotle conceived of a single, unmoved mover as the ultimate cause of motion and order in the universe, distinct from the traditional Greek gods, and often interpreted as a divine, perfect actuality of thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+gods

*2. The natural laws of the universe, often referred to as universal laws or principles, are fundamental, immutable rules that govern the workings of the cosmos, encompassing everything from the smallest particles to the largest structures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+of+the+universe

*3. Ontological questions delve into the fundamental nature of existence and reality, exploring what exists and what doesn't, including questions about the existence of God, the nature of consciousness, and the meaning of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontological+questions

*4. Idealism and nominalism are contrasting philosophical positions on the nature of reality, specifically concerning universals (general concepts or ideas) and particulars (individual instances). Idealism posits that universals are real and exist independently of particulars, while nominalism denies the existence of universals, asserting that only particulars are real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Are Natural Laws real & particular, or Ideal and universal?

Again, you and I don't have enough in common to have a fruitful discussion.

Yep. That aversion to those who spend the most time on these issues, and who teach others about them... it's fucked. Like anyone can do that fe-low-so-fee stuff well, 'cause it's just makin' shite up. Might do me some now.

*1. aversion - a new recording of an old song.
*2. teach - that larnin' stuff is for kids.
*3. Shite - it somehow looks clever with the "e".

Accordion to the web, “aversion” means “a strong dislike or disinclination.“

Nuh. Aversion, like Madonna.

Or triple JJJ…


Might be too local.

Fundamentally, nobody knows.

Would it even be possible for humanity to reach a level of understanding that makes us understand the 'why' behind creation? To see not just the bigger picture, but the entire picture?

In my opinion, based on the information and scientific understanding we currently posses, the universe had a beginning. It is expanding in size and going forward in time. Based on these facts, the Big Bang theory seems most reasonable: an infinite point creating all matter (dark and regular) that sparked the beginning.

This leads me to believe (not know) that there is a 'higher' dimension beyond our universe. A cosmic web that is truly infinite and timeless. There is no such thing as time or space, nor particles or energy. It is nothing yet not nothingness. The web that is the fundamental fabric of not just the universe, but of infinity and eternity. Now you may ponder why this web exists, or what caused it to exist, and to that I must say that I have no clue.

If the cosmic web exists (or, as an alternative term, the 'hidden void'), then at least it explains what our universe is expanding into. This would also mean that the universe is not actually infinite, just incomprehensible in size; ever-expanding and slowly heading towards complete entropy.

Ultimately, we just don't know. We are still far too early in time to even begin to understand these questions, or to start our search for the truth. Will we ever reach this level of understanding? It is not likely, but it is okay to dream.

In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question. — an-salad

Indeed, logic and reason (alone) can't possibly answer the question. Future research and theory may point at an answer, but it seems unlikely that a definitive answer is in reach - because of the limits of available, empirical data.

If the answer is God, then it would lead to another question which is who or what created God. Since one of the definitions of god is the uncreated then that question answers itself. So in my opinion the Big Bang was created by god.

God-of-the-gaps (appleal to ignorance) fallacy. See Hitchens' Razor.

The source of all can only be nothing. What else is there?

Being comes from non-being.

The cause of the universe is the non-existence of God. If there was God already, the universe would be superfluous.

That question goes beyond our capacity to provide an intelligible answer.

One can say anything and probably be wrong about it.

You did.
But putting that to one side, nothing in that comment gives me any reason to take "random" seriously in it. You not knowing why something occurs doesn't make it random.

I think we could usefully conceive of such efforts as looking at formal causality, not efficient causation. . . . . Ontic structural realism goes in this direction and seems fairly popular in physics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ontic Structural Realism is over my head. But it seems to take for granted the timeless existence of real material things (beings) instead of ideal phenomenal percepts that are interpreted from local energetic signals (e.g. light). In any case, OSR seems to be one of several ways to interpret the world based on modern post-quantum physics*1. My own personal (amateur) worldview is also grounded, not in the phenomenal material world, but on the "form or structure" of what we interpret as Reality.

Almost a century ago, astronomers compiled evidence to construct a model of how the cosmos came to be in the structural form it now is : an expanding sphere of material stuff loosely held together by the mutual attraction we call Gravity. Ironically, the Big Bang theory of instantaneous emergence of matter & energy from who-knows-where? left itself open to biblical interpretations. So other scientists & philosophers have spent the last century re-interpreting the astronomical evidence in hopes of proving that Material Reality is an eternal cycling process, which occasionally goes "pop!", to spin-off a new cycle. Hence no creation miracle necessary.

The BB hypothesis assumed that Causal Energy (including its many forms of matter) and Natural Laws (formal restraints) exist eternally. Is Gravity an energetic force, or a formal law of Nature? Presumably, that ante-BB multiverse was generally formally similar to our current implementation of natural laws. Yet, BB theory implies that our bubble universe is gradually expending its allotment of energy, and trending toward the empty tank of max Entropy. So, the open question here is, in the previous multiverse, "what force triggered the Big Bang outburst of a new cycle of space-time, with surprisingly low Entropy" ?

Yesterday, I came across a Quora forum response with the Transcendent Gravity image below. It illustrated a hypothetical alternative to miraculous creation by a powerful divine being. The god-substitute in this case is Gravity --- an "unobservable entity", which is called a "force', as opposed to Einstein's definition as a geometric (formal) relationship. Would you consider Cosmic Creation by Gravity to be Formal or Structural Realism? If Formal, is this creative force Real or Ideal? :smile:

PS___ I apologize if this post is not well-formed. As I said, such abstruse topics are over my curious little head. I wrote it mainly as an excuse to post the image below in the Big Bang thread, to elicit comments.

*1. "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." ___Werner Heisenberg

*2. Ontic structural realists argue that current physics teaches us that the nature of space, time and matter are not compatible . . . .
Scientific realism requires belief in the unobservable entities posited by our most successful scientific theories. It is widely held that the most powerful argument in favour of scientific realism is the no-miracles argument, . . . .
Structural realism is often characterised as the view that scientific theories tell us only about the form or structure of the unobservable world and not about its nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/



Note --- Gravity is immanent to the material universe, but it is not actually a vectored Force, it is an omnidirectional Form. Gravity is the interactive relationship between lumps of condensed energy (i.e. matter). You could say that Gravity is the Logical Structure of the universe.

Response to the Forum Article on Cosmology and Causation

The article raises profound questions about causation, cosmic inflation, and the limits of scientific explanation. While I appreciate the nuanced discussion of formal vs. efficient causality, I’d like to offer an alternative perspective rooted in the philosophy of Orod Bozorg (اُرُد بزرگ) (Orodism), which harmonizes with certain aspects of steady-state cosmology and challenges the need for a singular "beginning" to the universe.

1. Beyond the Big Bang: Timelessness and Continuous Creation

The article notes the ambiguity in defining the "Big Bang" as either a specific event or a metaphorical "time zero." Orodism rejects the notion of a temporal starting point altogether, echoing the steady-state model’s assertion that the universe is eternal and dynamically evolving. Orod Bozorg’s maxim, "The cosmos is without beginning or end; we are its branches, here to blossom", emphasizes a universe in perpetual transformation—where "creation" is not a past event but an ongoing process. This aligns with the article’s critique of non-informative priors: if the universe’s low entropy appears improbable, perhaps it’s because we’re imposing temporal boundaries on a fundamentally timeless reality.

2. Structural Realism and Human Agency

The article’s reference to ontic structural realism resonates with Orodism’s view of the cosmos as a dynamic, interconnected whole. Orod Bozorg teaches that humans are not passive observers but active participants in cosmic evolution ("We are part of the cosmos’ branches, meant to flourish and gift it new beauty"). This mirrors the article’s call to move beyond Humean causation: if causation isn’t merely temporal succession, then human creativity and ethical action (final causes) become part of the universe’s explanatory fabric.

3. Cosmic Inflation vs. Steady-State Principles

While cosmic inflation attempts to explain the Big Bang’s initial conditions, Orodism—like the steady-state model—posits a universe where matter and energy are in continuous renewal, avoiding the need for a singularity. The steady-state theory’s dismissal by mainstream cosmology (due to the CMB) doesn’t negate its philosophical value: it challenges us to question whether "beginning" is a necessary metaphysical category. As explored in "The Similarities Between Orod Bozorg’s Philosophy and the Steady-State Model" (Nahid Nazari, 2023), both frameworks share a rejection of temporal finitude in favor of infinite becoming.

4. Fine-Tuning and the Role of Explanation

The article rightly questions whether we should accept fine-tuning as a brute fact. Orodism offers a middle path: the universe’s apparent fine-tuning reflects not chance but the inherent harmony of a self-sustaining system. Orod Bozorg’s principle of "dynamic harmony" suggests that what we call "fine-tuning" may simply be the universe’s natural state of balance—a structural necessity rather than a contingent outcome.
Conclusion: Toward a Synthesis

The article’s exploration of causality would benefit from integrating Orodist metaphysics, where formal and final causes coexist with scientific models. By embracing a universe that is eternal, participatory, and structurally coherent, we avoid the dead end of "it just is" and instead affirm a cosmos that invites both scientific and philosophical engagement.

For further reading, I recommend "Dialectics in the Philosophy of Orodism" (Vancouver Association, 2023), which delves into these parallels with modern cosmology.

According to some scientist the Big Bang was just a theory created to help them model the universe, but lately there has been some discoveries that have been found (such as galaxies that are older than the Big Bang itself) that call into question whether the Big Bang ever happened.

IHMO, it is probably best to not think too much about why a scientific model/theory is the way it is because they are really just meant as a tools for trying to understand a complex subject and may not reflect how reality really works. In a way it is like trying to guess why thing in Game of Thrones world is the way it is. In fictional worlds this are just the way they are according to the author, and try to second guess what something might be if he never thought about it is basically like a dog trying to chase it's own tail. :chin: