Eternal Inflation Theory and God

Devans99

Eternal Inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation) is cosmology’s best model for how the universe came about. It proposes that the origin of the multiverse was a speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment. This speck inflated and quantum fluctuations then caused the inflation process to stop locally, convert into normal matter and form Big Bangs that created each ‘bubble universe’ in the multiverse.

Eternal Inflation is usually presented as an atheist model, so I’d like to present an alternative deist/theist interpretation.

First consider the initial speck of anti-gravity material; it is usually attributed to natural causes; quantum fluctuations. If time is infinite and inflation occurs naturally, there should have already have been an infinite number of separate eternal inflations events. The universe should be full of matter and EMR from these events yet we detect nothing. That suggests either time is finite or inflation is a one-off, non-natural event. Both are augments in favour of God.

The argument can be generalised to argue against any naturally occurring cause of the Big Bang with infinite time; there would be infinite Big Bangs and we have evidence of only one. Gravitational/EMR aspects of previous Big Bangs should betray themselves astronomically but we do not detect anything. So evidence points to finite time or Big Bangs are one-off, non-natural events (IE caused by God).

Eternal inflation is mooted as a mechanism by which the Strong Anthropic Principle is realised (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle). The argument is that each bubble universe has different physical laws and a different standard model; the vast majority of bubble universes are not life supporting but we happen to live in one of those that is. Thus the evidence of fine-tuning for life in the universe is explained without the need for God. I do not buy this argument. All of the bubble universes are made from the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all turn out the same (live supporting). In addition, we have a sample size of one indicating universes are live supporting so we have statistical reasons to believe other universes are life supporting. Also any model that evolves a billion-to-one shot coming off (IE we happen to live in one of the few life supporting universes) is suspect. If all universes were life supporting (because all were created by God) that just requires a one-to-one shot.

There is a final point with regards to eternal inflation; it smacks of design. It looks like a very efficient mechanism for creating as much life as possible (creating infinite life supporting universes from nothing). It is the type of mechanism that a God would employ to create a multiverse.

Josh Alfred

I think once you attribute eternalism to the universe, there is no longer a justified belief for an external eternal creator.

You can also look at the evidence for the absence of a creator. How much of space is empty? Why is there such a low life to space proportion if we are here intended by some higher being?

You can also look at the pieces of evidence that show that the universe is EVEN NOW forming naturally, with no apparent intelligence behind its formation (thus automatically).

You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism.

Devans99

I think once you attribute eternalism to the universe, there is no longer a justified belief for an external eternal creator. — Josh Alfred

That depends on if cause and effect still have meaning outside of time; they might do in which case we could have an eternal (outside of time) God and an eternal universe he created.

You can also look at the evidence for the absence of a creator. How much of space is empty? Why is there such a low life to space proportion if we are here intended by some higher being? — Josh Alfred

I think if you look at it in terms of matter usage; most of the universe is dedicated to stars (power source for life) and planets (living surfaces for life). For me, there is just too much fine-tuning for life in the standard model and big bang to doubt the the existence of a creator.

You can also look at the pieces of evidence that show that the universe is EVEN NOW forming naturally, with no apparent intelligence behind its formation (thus automatically).

You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred

I am proposing that God created the universe with an initial act and that nature completes the process so I agree the universe should be still forming naturally; it was only the initial act of the Big Bang/Inflation that was unnatural.

I think the way science bends over backwards logically to avoid any consideration of a deity is a mistake. Ultimately it maybe that we have a creator God, so solutions that involve a creator God are worthy of consideration. It's not like I'm proposing magic; it was just the initial creation event was contrived by a creator (God) using natural processes.

MindForged

Eternal Inflation is usually presented as an atheist model... — Devans99

I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words.

MindForged

That depends on if cause and effect still have meaning outside of time; they might do in which case we could have an eternal (outside of time) God and an eternal universe he created. — Devans99

I don't know how this is even supposed to be conceptualized. Time is a crucial aspect of cause and effect for an obvious reason: These terms are defined in terms of temporal sequences during which some event Y follows some event X given some state of affairs. No time means no cause and effect.

Devans99

I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged

My argument is that it does require a creator. If eternal inflation was a natural event and time is infinite the there should be an infinite number of eternal inflation events. We see only evidence for one. Hence either time is finite (created by the creator) or inflation is not a natural events (caused by the creator).

No time means no cause and effect. — MindForged

Maybe God has something else, analogous to time but different that also supports cause and effect.

Kippo

You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred

I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. @Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me.

Devans99

I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me. — Kippo

I don't think he had much of a choice. How would any God go about designing intelligent life? It's surely impossible even for Gods; we are just way too complex to design. So we had to be generated instead; generated by evolution. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. The planets are the playing surfaces, the stars the energy sources. If you put yourself in God's shoes, this seems the only feasible approach to creation.

Terrapin Station

It proposes that the origin of the multiverse was a speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment — Devans99

What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"?

Or in other words, as I've pointed out before, and as should be obvious, no matter what we posit, we're stuck on either with "something coming from nothing" or something always existing. There's no way to circumvent that problem, so we might as well just stick with the obvious stuff instead of making up things that don't necessarily make any sense--"god," "quantum fluctuations," whatever.

Devans99

What's the origin of the "speck of anti-gravity material located in a high energy environment"? — Terrapin Station

The theory does not say. A common interpretation of the theory is some sort of natural event like a quantum fluctuation temporarily fluctuates the speck into existence for just long for eternal inflation chain reaction to start. But if time is infinite there should of been an infinite number of such natural, eternal, events and we see no evidence for this (so time is finite or inflation is unnatural).

As to the high energy environment, I'm not sure where that is supposed to come from. Something contrived by the creator I would imagine.

Inis

I think the real point is that it's a model that does not require anything god-like to explain any particular aspect of it. Atheism-compatible, in other words. — MindForged

The Borde Guth Vilenkin tells us there was a beginning.

MindForged

↪Inis

OK? Aside from the broad misuse of that theorem, "there was a first moment of time" doesn't lend anymore weight to there being a God or not.

Kippo

God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. — Devans99

Conway's life is very passive though - you wait for something unexpected to emerge.

If you put yourself in God's shoes, — Devans99

Not a problem! I've always fancied creating a more involved version of Conway's where one tweaks the rules in real time. Maybe your God tweaks the universal constants - though let's hope he does this by creating a universe per tweak, rather than changing them in established universes. Especially ours!

Rank Amateur

↪MindForged

always kind of thought if the world is finite, it lent some weight to the concept of an un-created - creator, or a non-contingent being. What am I missing?

Inis

OK? Aside from the broad misuse of that theorem, "there was a first moment of time" doesn't lend anymore weight to there being a God or not. — MindForged

A misuse of the theorem? Not according to Vilenkin.

MindForged

↪Inis

Check Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig. Carroll shows one of them (Guth I think) saying it's a misuse of the theorem.

MindForged

↪Rank Amateur

Why would it lend it weight? All that can actually be derived from a finite past is that there's a first moment of time. There's nothing to really justify assertions of that sort about a type of event we have no other examples of, so generalizations from the kinds of events that happen within the universe don't bubble back to the universe's existence.

Rank Amateur

↪MindForged

so you are willing to allow, for some reason, an exception to the rule of causation ? Why?

Inis

Check Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig. Carroll shows one of them (Guth I think) saying it's a misuse of the theorem. — MindForged

Carroll is wrong. The BGV theorem proves there was a creation event, given a rather broad, realistic, and empirically established criterion.

MindForged

↪Rank Amateur

It's not an exception. Cause and effect are temporal processes, and more to the point, refers to something about existing things. If there indeed was a first moment of time, it cannot have been caused because there's nothing (as it, there isn't anything) "before" time because "before" is a temporal concept, it cannot exist unless time does. It's just a category mistake. You might want an explanation for why the universe exists, but there may well not be one. Or if there is, it won't be of the sort you expect.

MindForged

Carroll is wrong. The BGV theorem proves there was a creation event, given a rather broad, realistic, and empirically established criterion. — Inis

Carroll was quoting one of the authors of the theorem. You have no idea what the BGV theorem actually says, nor its limitations (namely, that contrary to what basically every physicist believes, spacetime is treated classically so it runs short of the whole picture). Alan Guth's statement was thus:

"I don't know if the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal but nobody knows."

Don't speak with such certainty, one of the authors of your own source (the BGV theorem) disagrees with your assessment.

Rank Amateur

If there indeed was a first moment of time, it cannot have been caused because there's nothing — MindForged

no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out.

MindForged

↪Rank Amateur

I didn't rule out God as a possibility, I said a finite past does not lend any more credence to one. Something doesn't come *from* nothing. You can call it uncaused if you wish, but notice how absurd the idea is if something is caused to exist at all. If "somethingness" is caused to exist, it has to be caused to exist by something. But that means something already existed. Then the whole question of "How does anything exist?" has been answered by the framing of the question. There was no beginning in virtue of the framing of "X caused to exist by Y".

No matter how you slice it some rule that applies to existing phenomena is going to go in this limit case for the existence of anything existing. All I've said is that whichever one it is - eternal or finite - doesn't really seem to be in the favor of God being the explanation. If the past is finite, there was a first moment of time and the notion of there being a cause is incoherent because it's a category mistake.

Inis

no matter how you cut it, you are saying that from nothing - there was something - that was not caused. Can't see how with that understanding - you can rule out a an un-created creator. It seems you are ruling it out as a possibility - simply because you want to rule it out. — Rank Amateur

Can you point to any law of physics that mentions causality, or where causality can be inferred?

Rank Amateur

↪Inis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Rank Amateur

Something doesn't come *from* nothing. You can call it uncaused if you wish, but notice how absurd the idea is if something is caused to exist at all. If "somethingness" is caused to exist, it has to be caused to exist by something. — MindForged

I agree - but if the universe is finite. By definition it had a first moment. so also by definitnon there was nothing before that. So there was nothing - than there was something. How?

Your answer seems to be, is something cant come from nothing, but it did, so it didn't - I am lost in you logic. And pretty sure it is my fault.