Does Cosmology Require Knowledge Of Reality?

Since the universe has been designed with a mind that has purpose much like how a house it built, reprogramming adult stem cells, building an engine, or a machine. Today’s secular Cosmologists have entered the non-reality zone!

Cosmologist Sean Carroll would like to get rid of the idea of reality, to him it’s not important if reality can verify it or not, rather what is believed to be real or not. Carroll writes

“Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.”

A question comes to mind from one of my expert readers who he himself is a Cosmologist. If God is impossible for us to use man-made tools to detect Him directly to explain what we see in the universe, then how can the likes of Caroll and perhaps yourself, believe in other realms that are impossible to access directly?

Is reality important in your research? Stephen Hawking, who is considered one of the smartest men to ever exist, embraces non-reality because he says, “I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.”  If you don’t know what reality is, how do you know if it’s true or not? Because now your entering the occultic realm where reality is just an illusion and as a result of reality not conforming to its premise, an inference is carefully crafted and shaped for reality which is then fitted for the occultic realm as truth.

Do non-reality realms (something one would find in science fiction movies) such as a belief in multi-universes make predictions, advance math or even technology? It certainly advances the imagination of man but for what purpose? Promote atheism? Is string theory for example, just a faith-based theory in order to defend atheism?

Cosmology does require a knowledge of reality, though it may not have the whole picture as man continues to learn about the universe but embracing anti-real based theories is not scientific.

Albert Einstein, once said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”

Advertisements

86 thoughts on “Does Cosmology Require Knowledge Of Reality?

  1. “Since the universe has been designed …”

    No it hasn’t.

    And ‘secular cosmologists’ do not exist, just ‘cosmologists’ (capital not needed).

    But of course ‘reality’ is important in our research, which mostly consists on establishing what that is. You can of course devise theories that are not yet based on reality as we know it now, but make predictions on what reality will look like if we get a bigger telescope, for example, and collect more of that reality. Theories are allowed to predict things we haven’t seen yet.

  2. The earth/universe has multiple signs of intricate functionality consistent with design. Even if a hypothesis confirms multiple predictions, this does not mean that the hypothesis is necessarily correct. Science requires the constant updating of all models when new information is acquired.

  3. “The earth/universe has multiple signs of intricate functionality consistent with design. ”

    I’d love to see the evidence plus interpretation for this statement … don’t think you have that.

  4. Eelco,

    Why would cosmologist Sean Carroll want to retire falsifiability all together rather than with exceptions? He even says it’s “impossible” to directly detect other realms (more than one universe). That is not the same as building a better telescope to see a greater range of the universe. Because the telescope has already proven itself as a tool for direct observation. It’s inferences from what you see in the telescope can falsify or confirm expectations, such as discovering objects in space that previously wasn’t thought to be possible, you cannot do that with a belief in other realms. It’s not possible!

  5. Sean Carroll does not want to retire falsifiability all together. You don’t seem to understand what he is saying.

  6. Eelco,

    You mean hand pick which theories it will apply to? The foundation of using ‘multi-universes’ doesn’t advance science, neither does explaining a finely tuned universe using anti-realism such as infinite universes doesn’t advance science either.

  7. You confirm one more time that you do not understand what he is saying.

    For the record, I don’t like the term multiverse at all.
    Oh, and the universe is not fine-tuned.

  8. I’d love to see the evidence plus interpretation for this statement … don’t think you have that.

    All you have to do is look in the mirror Eelco. Failing that, I am sure even you can find the applicability of multi-variable dependent laws in the cosmos from perusing any good introductory textbook.

  9. Oh, and the universe is not fine-tuned.

    Seems you like to make claims and not follow up with any explanation. One wonders how you obtained a PhD. Perhaps you would like to help Stenger to dismantle Luke Barnes’ article that ‘refutes’ Stenger’s claims on fine tuning [http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS12015.htm].

  10. Ah, my last comment ended up in the wrong tread, indeed !
    My mistake.

    Has nothing to do with how I got my PhD, of course, which was hard work.
    Insults like these don’t help you much, of course.

    But you have already read Stenger, which I certainly agree with, so repeating his book here does not seem sensible to me.

  11. “If you don’t want to see the obvious, even God cannot help you.”

    Talking to yourself now, Chazing ?

    It is all very obvious, once you’ve read Stenger’s excellent book: no fine-tuning indeed.

  12. Insults don’t have to help me Eelco. The obvious is for anyone to see, I would assume that you are capable of sight and seem to refuse to see design because it doesn’t fit your worldview. The issue is not if fine tuning is needed (this is standard atheist speak), the issue is if the universe exhibits fine tuning for life. Also, if Stenger’s book was “excellent”, why was it published by a pop-atheist press?

  13. A worldview would include how you process information. One person would see DNA and conclude a designer, you see DNA and conclude chance. So no Eelco, worldview is not irrelevant. I am not a cosmologist nor do I agree or disagree with the claims of fine tuning for intelligent life. Rather, as a cosmologist, you should be eager to explain your views for better science education. That you refuse to do so except to say that there are textbooks one can read at a library, illustrates that you only care to make unsupported claims, EXACTLY WHAT YOU REPEATEDLY FAULT MICHAEL FOR DOING [bold html code not working for some reason].

    Again, if Stenger’s book was “excellent”, why was it published by a pop-atheist press? Has Stenger published ANY book in a scholarly press?

  14. Chazing, you are just being obnoxious (and insulting).

    “Insults don’t have to help me Eelco. ”
    So why insult me then ? Just to be obnoxious ?

    I do not make unsupported claims. The claims are well-supported in books like Stenger’s, which I have read and understood, as it is my field of research.

    And no, my worldview is irrelevant. Evidence and arguments are.

  15. Why insult? Rhetoric of course.

    Stenger’s books are ALL (AFAIK) published by a pop-atheism press. I don’t think he has one fine-tuning peer-reviewed publication. If however you have one (on fine tuning or the lack thereof), post the link (after all, it is your “field of research”.

    Evidence and arguments are only as good as the explanatory filter or worldview from which they are assessed. I don’t need to be insulting given the simplicity of your logic.

    I would point out to readers that Eelco is again refusing to answer direct questions about Stenger’s books. The Deeper Waters blog has many posts highlighting the barren nature of Stenger’s works [http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/category/new-atheists/victor-stenger].

  16. “Has Stenger published ANY book in a scholarly press?”

    Few scientists publish complete books (textbooks are more abundant) – most publish scientific papers. Stenger has written quite a few. Google yourself for his CV.

  17. “I would point out to readers that Eelco is again refusing to answer direct questions about Stenger’s books. ”

    You did not ask direct questions, you only referred to someone else (Luke Barnes) who is meant to be critical of Stenger’s arguments.

    “I don’t need to be insulting given the simplicity of your logic.”

    Which is another insult.

    You simply remain obnoxious, which is not a good basis for a discussion.

  18. I think you are confused. The direct question was this: If Stenger’s book was “excellent”, why was it published by a pop-atheist press? Prometheus press is not academic, nor scholarly and it is atheistic.

  19. Good grief. The press was founded by Kurtz. That book in question is written by an agnostic and questions the foundation of Christianity by making it solely Pauline theology. All presses are commercial. Again, your ignorance is insulting enough.

  20. “That book in question is written by an agnostic”

    Yeap, not atheist.

    “Again, your ignorance is insulting enough.”

    Sure, keep them coming. Makes you look …

    “Of course you do Mr. appeal to authority.”

    I do not appeal to anyone. I know some of these people, and understand their arguments. I appeal to these arguments.

  21. Seems we have found ourselves an ultra-literalist who thinks that an atheist press cannot publish anything by an agnostic. Appealing to their arguments IS the same as an appeal to an authority because you have not stated WHY the universe is not fine-tuned. Give us a few examples off the top of your head. Should be easy, this is your area of research.

  22. “because you have not stated WHY the universe is not fine-tuned. ”

    Because of Stenger’s arguments. Not because of who presents them, so it is not an appeal to authority.

    And you can read them yourself in Stenger’s book. Far too many to put in a little box here.

    If you really like to know WHY (in capitals, of course), read the book.
    I have, and agree with his findings.

  23. You seem to want to hide behind Stenger.

    Let me make this super easy, what two sets of data in your own area of research, argue against the fine tuning of the cosmos? Please give a brief explanation how each data set does this.

  24. I said I understand the arguments, because of my field of research.
    I did not say I do research in fine-tuning myself.

    Also, I am not hiding behind anyone. Stenger wrote down good arguments, which I agree with. That is all – no hiding involved.

  25. Apologies, I misunderstood. Seems like I will indeed have to look at that book again. I do however, find it strange that you can’t recall one of his arguments (or don’t care to) or are unwilling to state your take on it here. Well, as you wish.

  26. No Eelco, the main reason is that you don’t properly explain yourself. If you had done more than simply appeal to Stenger’s arguments (none of which you have stated BTW), then there would have been no need for me to assume [from your posts] that you were into fine tuning research. Additionally, if you are a research cosmologist, then you should have at least one argument against fine tuning given that you stated that: “the universe is not fine-tuned”. Such a statement begs the reader to assume that you are standing on your own research given that you appealed to no one.

    It is silly to make such a factual statement and then want to hide behind ‘not doing fine tuning research myself but I agree with whatever is in Stenger’s book’. My attitude is nowhere near Olorin and you have never said anything to him about that. You’re being hypocritical and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you.

    Given that you don’t discuss anything but make pot-shot comments without explanations, I highly doubt that you are even capable of ‘discussing’ anything with Dr. Barnes, who has a shorter fuse for nonsense that I do.

  27. Of course I discuss lots … that’s what I do all day. But I already explained why discussion with you is almost impossible.

    Stenger’s arguments are already stated by Stenger, as you know (have you read the book ?). There is a short version in PDF version on his website.

    Your attitude is pretty bad indeed (yet more insults in your last reply … how sad), and of course I am not hypocritical: Olorin’s attitude was not bad, so of course I never said it was.
    Unfortunately he is no longer among us, I think …

  28. The evidence for our claims are freely available for others to make their own decision. That you would call Olorin’s attitude “not bad” even when I repeatedly called it to your attention is indicative that you can’t be trusted to be fair. Frankly, said claim is ‘insulting’, ‘offensive’ and displays a ‘pretty bad attitude’. Hide behind Stenger (or the strawman of my so-called poor attitude) all you want, it is a sad day when a PhD cosmologist can’t give one example from his own research for why the universe is not fine tuned. Barnes blogs here: letterstonature.wordpress.com. Enjoy.

  29. Of course I *can*, Chazing.
    I have already stated why I won’t, in your case.

    And your bad attitude is not a strawman. The evidence is all over this thread.

  30. Sigh, when you made the claim that “the universe is not fine-tuned” you were not speaking to me but to Michael. You cannot use my supposed “bad attitude” as an excuse here. The evidence is indeed all over this site that you like to make claims and not explain them. Notice the statement: “You confirm one more time that you do not understand what he is saying.” Why not explain what Michael doesn’t understand?

  31. It is not a supposed bad attitude, it is a bad attitude. Again, evidence all over this thread of your bad attitude.

    So I’m happy to speak to Michael (if he bothers to reply here), but not to you.

  32. “That you would call Olorin’s attitude “not bad” even when I repeatedly called it to your attention is indicative that you can’t be trusted to be fair. ”

    It is your opinion that Olorin’s attitude was bad, not mine. Therefore I am not hypocritical at all: I strongly disagree with your opinion on the late Olorin. This has nothing to do with trust or fairness, but with disagreement.

  33. I’m not saying I admire Stenger – I don’t know him personally. I do agree with his arguments.

    If you don’t want to buy and/or read his book – fine. The paper I linked to is nice and short though.

  34. So I’m happy to speak to Michael (if he bothers to reply here), but not to you.

    Yes, you’re happy to provide him with claims without any supporting evidence, as you have consistently done.

    It is your opinion that Olorin’s attitude was bad, not mine.

    It is your opinion that my attitude is bad, not mine.

  35. “It is your opinion that Olorin’s attitude was bad”

    Never said Olorin’s attitude was bad: I said his attitude was *not* bad.

    Yours is still bad. I do not see any improvement whatsoever.

  36. If discussion is “almost impossible” with me, your constant replies would indicate that you are a liar. Also, you have not stated if you would have Michael interview you. I really don’t know what you consider a discussion but it would contain a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ if you are open to a “discussion” with Michael (as you say you are).

  37. I am not discussing with you, as that is indeed almost impossible. I’m just factually correcting some of your statements (on my opinion about Olorin’s attitude, for example), not discussing them.

  38. Hi Chazing! Answer to the first question, I provide evidence. For example, the universe is finely tuned, take earth as an example…Oxygen in our atmosphere, if greater then plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily. If less then many animals would have not enough to breathe. Water vapor, if there is too much in the atmosphere this would cause an out of control greenhouse effect, if less, the earth would not be able to sustain many life forms. Thickness in the crust, too thick would cause too much oxygen to transfer from the atmosphere to the crust, a thinner crust would cause volcanic and tectonic activity to increase to unsustainable levels for life on earth! And the list goes on and on.

    Olorin? Who is he? lol :)
    Chazing has a good attitude and asks tough questions like a philosopher of science would…:)

    Well Eelco, I would buy his book on the condition I posted to you. And not only that, part of the interview would be about that book…

  39. Michael, I think Olorin died recently, so a little bit of respect would be in order. And I obviously strongly disagree with you about Chazing’s attitude: insults are not good attitude.

    If you want to blackmail me into an interview, then no … it is your miss if you don’t want to buy Stenger’s book.

    Whether the Universe is fine-tuned or not is unclear (in my opinion it is not): it is certainly not a fact, as you seem to think.

  40. Hi Michael, the issue of fine tuning is not really the problem. It is any theistic conclusion that is being questioned by Stenger. The title of his book is a fallacy in itself (category error) and he tries unsuccessfully to mesh theology, philosophy and physics to craft his argument (at least up to chapter 3). Actually, the first 2 verses of chapter 1 are a non-sequitur. He makes logical errors even in the preface. You should get his book to see how NOT to form an argument.

    To Eelco, I am an engineer. I ask the hard questions and insult those who I think are using faulty logic (or at least I would like to think I do).

    As for Olorin, let’s be consistent now. There is no evolutionary reason to respect the dead. He claimed to be a Lutheran evolutionist but posted as an atheist & an ID advocate! He repeated insulted theology, made philosophical mistakes in droves, and did not understand science or engineering. He was rude (which frankly is fine) but I called it repeatedly to your attention as you have focused solely on my attitude. I thus repeat my claim, you are a hypocrite.

    Whether the Universe is fine-tuned or not is unclear (in my opinion it is not): it is certainly not a fact, as you seem to think.

    Behold, a claim without a supporting argument! At least Michael gave three reasons with brief explanations for his views. Since getting a yes/no answer from you is so painful, it is clear that you don’t want any form of ‘discussion’ but would rather make pot-shot comments (which I will insult accordingly of course).

  41. So you admit that you insult (and you spit out yet another insult in your last reply). In other words, a bad attitude.

    As for Olorin, I am consistent, and certainly not a hypocrite. You are merely repeating what you said before, which I have already refuted.

  42. An insult != bad attitude, perhaps it is your natural science orientation but that’s not how engineering does it. You don’t discuss/explain anything properly to actually accomplish a refutation. Perhaps in your field of study, a refutation is something simplistic like that which you proffer, again, that’s not how it works in engineering nor how science should actually work.

  43. “You don’t discuss/explain anything properly to actually accomplish a refutation.”

    I do discuss everything, of course, with all my colleagues and most of the world.

    But not with you, for the reason stated so often now it gets boring.

  44. I could not care less whether you believe me or not. Ask my colleagues.

    As for Michael, in the last 3-4 years I’ve tried lots of times to start a discussion with Michael, but he almost never replies to my questions / comments, so he does not seem interested at all in a discussion.

  45. Which colleagues? And why is it that when Michael asks for an interview (i.e. desires a discussion), you say no and call it blackmail?

  46. Chazing says…“And why is it that when Michael asks for an interview (i.e. desires a discussion), you say no …”

    The purpose of the interview is to educate such as why did he choose his field, and to challenge. Put it this way, if I was an evolutionist he would consider.

    So if atheism was true, the universe along with other supposed universes (if they believe in more than one) have no explanation (cause) of its existence.

    Many years ago, it was believed this universe was eternal, in other words, it had no cause for its existence but they recognize that this idea of infinite leads to self-contradictions. You number your infinite events and you minus out all the even moments and you have an equation of infinity minus infinity equals infinity. Now if you take those same moments and minus out that are numbered higher than 3, your answer is 3! You can get any answer you want by how you custom make the equation.

    David Hilbert, who was the best mathematician in the 20th century said, The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

    Past events are not some idea, but rather real events that occurred. When Darwin proposed his version of evolution, scientists began to believe the universe was eternal as a way to rebel against the Bible which said it had a beginning. Advances in science, dispelled that myth of the universe being eternal when they discovered the universe was expanding which eventually lead them to believe the universe does have a beginning so the theory of the “big bang” was invented. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle pointed out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing!

    But then came along, Quantum physicists who claimed the universe could have arisen from an uncaused “quantum vacuum”. Did you ever hear of “nothing” creating matter or energy? Not only “nothing” can’t create, it doesn’t even have those things! So a cause had to bring this universe into being and if there were other universes out there, this would applied to them as well! Everything that exists has a cause.

    Dr. Wernher von Braun (German-American Pioneer Rocket Scientist) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

  47. “Put it this way, if I was an evolutionist he would consider. ”

    ‘Evolutionist’ is a word that is solely used by creationists. In science this term is not used, of course, so as far as I am concerned no-one is an “evolutionist”.

    Michael, I’ve explained why I object: you proposed an interview *as a condition* for you buying a book. I don’t play such games.

  48. “Did you ever hear of “nothing” creating matter or energy? Not only “nothing” can’t create, it doesn’t even have those things!”

    We’ve been there as well: “nothing” in physics is the quantum vacuum, which certainly has an energy density. It is *not* the philosophical nothing.

  49. ‘Evolutionist’ is a word that is solely used by creationists. In science this term is not used, of course, so as far as I am concerned no-one is an “evolutionist”.

    WordWeb: evolutionist: “A person who believes in organic evolution”

    Guess “creationists” have hijacked WordWeb. They have apparently also taken over Oxford Dictionaries, Vocabulary.com and Collins English dictionary.

    This strange claim of yours however, would indicate that you are quite likely a secular humanist [ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionist ] or given to making grand claims which can be easily disproved.

    That you would recommend Stenger’s Fallacy of Fine Tuning, when his first two sentences are fallacious, would indicate that you are unable to read critically.

  50. “… would indicate that you are unable to read critically.”

    A critical reading can result in a positive or in a negative judgement on a text. Your opinion is negative, mine is positive: we disagree. That in no way implies I did not read critically, or that I would be unable to do so.

  51. A critical reading of a book which starts with a fallacy, should result in a negative judgment. If someone has a positive judgment, it reflects on their ability to think critically.

  52. It is only your opinion that is starts with a fallacy, not a fact (at all).

    Interpretation: I (Eelco) can’t figure out the fallacy thus none exists.

    Are you going to recant your claim that: “‘Evolutionist’ is a word that is solely used by creationists.”?

  53. Why would I recant my claim about the use of the word “evolutionist” ?
    It is listed in dictionaries. So it exists. But I was talking about its use.

  54. If Michael (and creationists) are using a word that is found in dictionaries and the word is not being abused as per its definition, then the claim that it is “not used at all in science” is irrelevant. That it can be found in a dictionary means that the word can and is used in science, though not necessary the so-called natural sciences. Additionally, all creationists (including YECs) are evolutionists but on a small (and testable i.e. scientific) scale.

  55. Eelco,

    I think you miss what’s his name…lol I think the term “science” is being abused and misused…How many use “science” and “evolution” as though it were the same word?

  56. How many use “science” and “evolution” as though it were the same word?

    Evolution is science. The question is: which form of evolution is science and which is extrapolation beyond the evidence with faulty assumptions?

    Since Olorin was not his real name, there is no reason Michael cannot substitute a “lol” in its place. He was a comically dense mind IMO. So why get upset over what your own brand of evolution would describe as ‘ONLY a bunch of chemicals’? You are behaving like a creationist, shame on you Eelco.

  57. If you can’t (or won’t) explain yourself properly, so be it. However, shame on you for applying creationist logic to Olorin. He was in your evolutionary view ‘just chemicals’. Don’t go fretting over ‘just chemicals’ until you come out of the creationist closet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s