The universe before it began

Seed Magazine ^ | 5/22/06 | Maggie Wittlin

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Well one point that could be made is Newton thought gravity was equal to the product of the two objects in question, divided by the distance between the centers of mass squared. Now granted that's kind of archaic with todays modern physics but it's not to bad for and empirical first order approximation. So you have a constant divided by an ever increasing positive number. By that rational, all mass interacts with every other particle of mass and if the quantity of mass in the universe was just the proper amount, the expansion would cost toward a stop but never quite reach it (rather like Zeno's paradox). I take the liberty of describing the volume as fixed and finite even though we are talking about the limit as "T" approaches infinity.

In the real world, however, you would have to show that there is some reason not to get to zero when a function is decreasing constantly.

True, but the force causing the deceleration is not a constant. It is constantly decreasing (if you like Newton) at an inverse squared rate. Which means that doubling the separation between masses cuts the "attractive force" by 4 to 1.

Just looking at the "too little" mass, never ending expansion. Vs "too much" mass, cyclic expansion/collapse. There must be a just right case which would give you a finite volume solution. (Rather like balancing a pencil on it's point.) Defiantly meta stable since one scintilla more or less would inevitably tip the balance.

That's why I said that would be pretty strong proof of intelligent design starting with T=0 since it would be an almost unfathomable coincidence for such a stable outcome to happen by chance.

Regards,
GtG

[DennisR]

I have a better question - from whence did matter/everything come?

[Sandy]

Turtles all the way down.

[Seamoth]

It's clear this universe had a beginning and its origins cannot be explained by those living inside it. To me placing faith that this universe came from another universe, where a different set of physics operate, and wherein the origins -can- be explained, makes more sense than an eternal God. There is absolutely no difference between declaring "God just was, He's eternal" and "matter just was, it's eternal".

[The_Reader_David]

I believe I had made the point that both another (and the theory usually posits
many other) universe, and a divine fiat were equally unscientific (in the Popperian sense).

I would still suggest, that having left the realm of science, theism gains the advantage over unscientific naturalism when Occam's razor is applied: positing that the ground-of-all-being is person-like enough to earn the traditional name God and to be attributed a will seems to 'multiply entities' less than positing another universe to explain ours (and another to explain it . . . ).

[SunkenCiv]