How Did The Universe Begin - What Main Options Are There ?

Is the Big Bang (or Big Blob) Theory Still the Best Scientific Explanation ?

[These short paragraphs above I hope will be sign posts for young travellers, new philosophers, and older searchers to start an enjoyable and possibly on going investigation into what the universe really is; and what our place and purpose is within it.]

If we want to know what our place is in the universe and whether we have some purpose as well as place; then from time to time all new philosophers should spend a little time at least on a regular basis, considering how the universe came into existence and what our place is in it.

Quite often people start such a process of investigation by considering the very big and cosmological theories put forward by both science and established religious traditions. It seems to me that all these theories of which there are many can be grouped into just four or maybe five main categories or types. I would like to outline these categories very briefly to you now and would welcome your suggestions and comments, especially if you think I have overlooked any category that we should included.

1.  There is the possibility at least, that the universe is eternal and unchanging. What I mean by this is a that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. It always was and it always will be the same. Well I am going to rule this possibility out straight away in my own mind, because I know that stars come to an end and go supernova, scattering their dust across vast distances in the universe and that new generations of stars are created from this dust. I also know that the galaxies are moving outwards from us - or so they say; so perhaps I should be cautious about saying I 'know' this – when I have only 'heard' this. So even if the universe is eternal, and always was and always will be, it is certainly changing and evolving as time passes by.

2. Let us also say that one possibility is that the universe is eternal, but it is changing and always evolving. If this is the case, and I am certainly not suggesting that it is; then we need to ask ourselves a few further questions in order to clarify things; or perhaps give this suggestion a few sub-categories:

   a) Did this eternal yet evolving universe have a beginning, and will it have an end?

   b) Was there a beginning, but will there be no end?

   c) Was there no beginning and will there be no end?

   d) Was there no beginning, but will it have an end at some point?

3. My third main category is that the universe came into being at some point in the past. Again I would like to suggest two further questions for contemplation to clarify this:

   a) Was it made from something? (......but then what was it made from - just smaller bits of something, in which case where did the little bits come from? This then gets us no closer to understanding really where the universe came from. It just peels another layer off the question we are trying to answer; like peeling another layer off an onion

   b) Was it made from nothing? (.... but how can something be made from nothing at all – not even specs of dust? ) Is there really such a thing as 'nothing' in science?

4. From category 3 b above there seems to be the possibility at least that the universe was suddenly made from nothing in some kind of miraculous way. My two sub categories (or rather further questions to ask oneself) in this case are

  a) Was there was some divine or mystical intervention as suggested by various religious dogmas and spitual paths through the ages?

  b) Was there was some kind of scientific, albeit metaphysical and not understood yet, explanation that caused the universe to be created in the past, but created from nothing. Keep in mind - that there is a whole line of scientific inquiry exploring what 'nothing' actually is. (Apparently, according to many top scientists, nothingness is a very strange place and does not really exist, however well we create a vacuum. There will always be electrons appearing from nowhere and then disappearing again to goodness knows where. Books have been written by top scientists about what 'nothing' actually means.

  c) Thirdly, under this main heading of the universe being made from nothing; we could I suppose consider at least a combination of my two previous sub categories above that the universe was made from nothing by some divine or at least intelligent artificer or intelligent being - but of course still adhering to basic scientific principles whether we understand that these principles or not yet.

5. Finally, we must of course mention the prevailing main scientific theory at the moment being the 'big blob' theory - or sorry - I meant to say 'big bang' theory. Essentially, this theory suggests that there was a singularity (whatever that is - but I understand it is as a big blob of very dense stuff or matter) and that this blob suddenly exploded in some unexplained and miraculous way, and gave rise to the universe and everything within it. To make the mathematical equations fit, supporters of this theory need to assume that space and time did not exist before this miraculous explosion of 'the blob' occurred.

My only problem with this theory, is where did the big blob come from, and did this big blob not exist in time and space before it went 'bang' ? For me, if you are not explaining where the blob came from then once again you have not got to the heart of the onion; and are only taking off another layer. You are merely looping back into my earlier third category above - that the universe was made from something, in this case a big blob, and not a little bits of dust or rock or whatever. So for me the big blob or big bang theory does not really get the heart of the problem. What do you think?

The above is my first group of first considerations that I would encourage any new philosophers to contemplate as part of their inquiry into the creation of the universe. Certainly, my main list of categories above still omits some important issues that we need to consider.

These secondary but important considerations include:

  a) When we think of the creation of the universe we tend to think of it in purely material ways; e.g. when did the rocks, dust, planets, and stars come into being? However, there are things in the universe that have no material substance such as radio waves, sound waves, heat and other forms of energy etc. Some people would also include 'ideas' in these non material but very real items that do not have material substance. These non-material things are important and usually we have no hesitation in saying that they exist as well as rocks stones planets etc. So the question is did the material and immaterial universe come into existence at the same time. Another way of looking at this would be to clarify a little exactly what we mean and include in the term 'universe'

   b) Another extra complication with my above list of the possible explanations for the existence of the universe is, that like most people, I have looked upwards to the stars and cosmos when thinking about this, and seem to have only considered the very big and 'cosmological' ways that the universe may have been created. One cannot really get a real grasp on how the universe was created I fear without also having an understanding and looking at the very small and mysterious world of quantum physics and the very small particles that are the basis of every material thing around us. As philosophers investigating how the universe was created, does it have any purpose, and what the place of the human being is in that universe; we are obliged to also have some basic knowledge at least of what an electron really is; and importantly, what it really is not. We must have some understanding through investigation of he very small as well as the very big.

Towards A Theory of Ideas or Forms - Pt. B

Rather A Question of Different Layers of Reality.....

Last night in bed I tried to look down the “Delphic” or spiritual tunnel a little..... and reminded myself that if we are to be philosophers ourselves in Plato’s truest sense of the word – then we must have our own opinions and ideas about things – based on what seems most probable. It is not enough for us just to know the opinions of others – even if those others include great names like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

With the above in mind I would like to suggest how to improve / add to / or modernise Plato's vision of reality with his unseen and superior world of ideas or forms is. I would suggest that it is more correct to say now that it is not a question of there being another reality at the end of the tunnel to the cave let's say.... and that our reality – that which we perceive with our senses is false and inferior. After all, those prisoners really do see images on the wall of the cave – and there situation would be real to them. It seems to me that it is more a question of there being "additional" realities to the one we currently live and exist in and are familiar with. There are it seems different layers of reality...... which includes our own familiar one; although there are other realities as yet to be scientifically discovered or otherwise fully explained.

I am not sure this following example helps to understand my point – so let’s see. I was thinking about some goats quietly grazing on the gentle grassy slopes of Delphi. The goats all know there is a kind shepherd who takes them for a nice walk in the sunshine each morning – and makes sure they all get home safely as night. The shepherd – a pacifist let’s say – enjoys his work and takes good care of his goats which he has all given individual names for and treats kindly. Clearly, the goats do not realise at all that the shepherd is actually feeding them up for slaughter. The shepherd does not like to think about the slaughter too much and just gets on with his peaceful work. Now it just so happens that after the slaughter of the goats – the meat is sold in market – and goes via one agent and then another to feed “coalition” UN soldiers in Afghanistan who are targeting drones to drop missiles on terrorists. Obviously, neither goat or shepherd – or probably chap at the local meat market know anything about this bigger reality. The point is – we can all think up quick examples where the reality of something is a rather bigger picture than what seems apparent to us the viewer or listener with a limited view on things.

Man has traditionally seen himself as a very important part of the universe, indeed very often the most important part. He has therefore traditionally given himself a central place in that universe. In this universe all the stars went around planet earth where the human being dominated and ruled the world. We can only guess at the impact and uneasy mind shift created when Galileo said the planets all go around the sun - and that our sun was just one of thousands of similar stars in the galaxy and universe.

Although we "know" differently now, we still like to act sometimes in the old way. When that first flag was planted on the North Pole, the South Pole, the top of Everest, and even on the Moon, was there not a feeling of "this is now ours" to own and exploit as we wish..... I guess that although science is telling us differently - we still like to give ourselves central importance and rulers of the universe status. Perhaps most of us tend to do this sub-consciously unless we are careful not too. It is after all – a very comforting and secure view of the universe even if we know it just is not so.

I talked just now about an 'additional' reality or layers of reality rather than simply a different reality to the one we regard as "true" as Plato suggests. This view is actually being supported by science some people may find uncomfortable to hear. This view of layers of reality does not ignore the ideas of science and logic and what we already know to be true. Top scientists from cosmology already know that what we see is only a small minority part of what there is out there in the universe. And when we use the word see - what we really mean is see and therefore can comprehend..... because for the most part still..... unless people can actually see something with their own eyes then they find it difficult to believe in its existence..... or more accurately are unable to comprehend its existence.....

Scientists vary in opinion on what the proportion of this so called dark (unseen – not comprehended) matter might be. I am going to use the term "unknown universe" for the not comprehended and unseen universe of which dark matter forms only a part..... and I will tell you why I prefer this term and way of thinking in a moment. Optimistic scientists - that is those who think we know a lot about what is going on in the universe say that the dark matter (part of my unknown universe) is only 65% of reality and we can see and understand the other 35%. The general view of the scientific community though is that it may be 80% of unknown universe to 20% that we do know - and remember the tendency is to think or say that we know a bit more than we do...... So what happens if the pessimistic scientists are right and what we see or know is not 20% but 2% or 0.002%  If this is the case then how much will we really know for sure...  And readers know this, that from a few years from before Galileo when we thought we saw (and therefore assumed we knew 100%) we have steadily been realising – in spite of great technical advances and scientific discoveries - that we know less and less about what's out there..... or rather what the whole of our reality actually is. Like I say.... the current general consensus is that we know 15-20% or so of what is there..... but that figure is falling not rising as one would expect.

Now - seeing is believing - or so our consciousness’s are mostly limited to believing. And modern technology has given us new abilities to view the very big - that is the universe; and the very small - that is the mysteries of the quantum world of particle physics. Let's stick to the very big for the purposes of the rest of this short blog. We have fantastic telescopes these days compared to Galileo; the Hubble for example is out there in orbit staring into space - and this is becoming out of date fast. We have radio telescopes, infrared telescopes, and a whole range of telescopes "looking" at things in a way our eyes alone could never do using different light and energy wavelengths that our eyes (and ears) could never pick up by themselves. Actually, our equipment today covers the whole spectrum of light - and yet we are still not seeing - even by optimistic scientific predictions - this 85% of the universe.

What is the above telling us? Well, firstly it could be telling us quite simply that this extra "stuff" is not there and does not exist – and that simply – is why we cannot see it. This is more important than it sounds - since it would mean that all the calculations that predicted the existence of dark matter are flawed (to put it politely) and that we really have no idea what's going on at all. Alternatively, and I think more likely, it is telling us that all this other stuff - let's say 80+ % just cannot be seen in the usual way we see things - and that it most likely never will. But; it is still there as the mathematical calculations support. The scientists tell us it is there after all; they 'expect' us to believe that 80+ % of the universe is there although it cannot be seen - with any light wavelength viewing equipment – which means that we are never likely to see it in the way we normally think of as “seeing” things.
We as philosophers are therefore now obliged to propose, summarise, or guess what that 85% of the unknown universe is - and suggest why it is that way..... and also suggest ways that might help us understand it - even if we must now accept that even with all these telescopes - we will NEVER actually see it. Yet, the scientists and calculations tell us to believe it.....

For philosophers, or those true philosophers according to Plato, this is where the mind comes into play..... or rather our consciousness..... or for spiritual people like me perhaps where the soul comes into play.

If not additional layers of reality - then what do you propose instead?

Towards A Theory of Ideas or Forms for our Time - 01

It is my intention as I hope the few regular readers of this blog realise to take some of the central ideas of Socrates and Plato and make them more “simple” to grasp and understand rather than harder. Also, I hope readers realise that I am a great “enthusiast” of Socrates and Plato rather than their greatest critic. I feel it is necessary to mention this latter point since several of my recent posts to the Socrates 4 Today blog may seem very critical – accusing parts of Plato’s writing of being dry, tedious, unnecessarily complicated, and on occasions simply out of date when it comes to matters of science and various other subjects. Let me confirm to readers – that while still an enthusiast – I stand by the comments I have made on some of the Plato’s texts. For example, we cannot simply read Timaeus’ scientific account of planet earth or its place in the cosmos without accepting that medicine, cosmology and most other branches of scientific thinking have moved on enormously in the last two millenia and rendered many of his ideas and explanations simply out of date and inaccurate. However, I still recommend reading or perusing this text Timaeus and others of this type in order to see the scope of the work and for the questions and ideas it stimulates its readers to ask themselves and consider. One of the many beauties in Plato’s writing is that these questions and ideas will be different in all sorts of ways depending on the individual that is reading any given text – according to their talents, experiences, and particular areas of interest. 

Having lulled you my friends and readers with a comfortable beginning to my short piece, let me now try and provoke in you some ideas and questions of my own using some more recent examples. Firstly, Socrates suggests that ideas exist by themselves in some other world or place or form – as well as there being “particular” examples of those ideas in this world - and I suppose most readers here understand this to mean that as well as examples of say ‘justice’ or ‘beauty’ or ‘circle’ here in our world – perfect examples of these concepts exist in the other world. (I mention here that in the dialogue Parmenides, a young Socrates is unsure whether this theory of perfect ideas or forms also applies to inelegant and insignificant things like hair, mud etc.)

Let us now take some up to date example like mobile telephones and all those communication satellites that circle the earth today. Do perfect examples of these ideas also exist in another world – or only particular examples like the old Nokia I have in my jacket pocket in this world? Well, although it may seem that I am talking perhaps light heatedly  I am perfectly serious when I say that I am completely open minded to the notion that in some way the ideas for mobile phones and satellites – once they have come in to existence – then exist for ever more in some way or another. This of course, for Socratic- Platonic philosophers like ourselves, begs the question of whether the ideas for mobile phones and satellites has existed for thousands of years already – and only now in recent decades has been discovered or “recollected” by us. My purpose in this short piece is not to persuade readers one way or another – but rather provoke them to contemplate such concepts to some degree themselves. That clarified, I would just like to add one further query at this point – and that is if some mild kind of meteor shower completely destroyed all those communication satellites does the idea of the satellite still exist. At first glance it appears so since of course we still have our knowledge and ideas about them and our need for them – and this would no doubt prompt those of us responsible for such things – to dig out the old plans, diagrams and blue prints so that new “particular” examples of those satellites could be made to replace the old ones. No great problem with that. However, a bigger question is that were that meteor shower to be much more extreme so that humankind were wiped out completely along with all those satellites (and let’s say mobile phones as well for the point of this argument) – would not the ideas for mobile phones and satellites still exist “out there” in one way or another – just waiting to be tapped into again or recollected by a species like our own with the ability to take advantage of those ideas – in a similar way as perhaps early humans may of done with the ideas for the wheel or stone arrow head?

A related matter I think worth considering to some degree is the notion of a “species or individual member of that species” with the ability to tap into – or recollect – or apply those ideas. Apples, coconuts, bananas and all manner of fruits and other objects have fallen on people’s heads since the very beginning of time and no doubt will continue to do so. There was nothing very special about that “particular” apple that dropped on Sir Isaac Newton’s head – but Newton jumped up and realised something very special so the storey goes – and came up with his ideas of mechanics and gravity which have been the corner stone of physics for centuries.

Had Pasteur died the day before he discovered penicillin and the cleaners gone in to tidy his laboratory – they might have clicked their tongues at the recently deceased professor for not washing up his petri dishes properly – and then ‘tragically’ washed that little bit of mould down the sink that has since saved tens of millions of lives and incalculable suffering. Thankfully Pasteur lived long enough to discover penicillin.

How many of us still exclaim “Eureka” when sliding into an over full bath of hot soapy water at the end of a busy day – and indeed how many people enjoyed a warm bath before Archimedes jumped out of that one particular overflowing bath realising that this was going to be a great way of finding the volume of odd shaped objects.
So even if the ideas do exist “out there” in some way – just waiting to be discovered or recollected - clearly it is not everyone who is going to be able to access all and every idea; although as one relaxes in that deep bath it may be an attractive idea……..

As mentioned above, quite frequently in Plato’s writings we come across suggestions and explanations which have clearly become out of date, and sometimes other arguments which may be rather dry and detailed in the way they are explained. However, what we need to do if we are to become “real” philosophers ourselves – is not merely be critical of other people’s ideas and explanations on various topics, but to begin to have our own ideas and explanations for things.

What Do You Think? Has the idea of mobile phones already existed for thousands of years? Would it still exist after the human race were extinct? If as the latter philosopher Proclus suggests – as individual human beings we are microcosms of the complete universe with the potentials of the whole universe within us – has the idea for the latest mobile phone been within us - or some people at least - since birth?