By Magis contributor David Persyn 

The age of the enlightenment gave rise to many new ideas.  Science was making new discoveries at an accelerating pace, and applied science was bringing about technological changes that had huge impact on basic human existence.  Philosophy, too, was undergoing big change, including philosophy that was, and is, the rational basis for belief in God.

There is a branch of philosophy called Metaphysics.  It is the study of that which is real; what is there, and what is it like.  Metaphysics has a branch, in turn, called ontology.  Ontology deals with being, existence, and reality.  First causes, unconditioned causes, and the like are ontological constructs.

During this period, Immanuel Kant observed that ontology fails as a proof because it is meaningless, even if valid.  We are human, and we cannot derive meaning outside of experiential, empirical knowledge.  Ontology validly delivers meaningless conclusions – Kant’s indictment of ontology, put briefly in my own words.

This resulted in disfavor among philosophers for ontological methodology during the 19^th century, and well into the 20^th.  Possibility of change in this status came when Father Lemaitre postulated the “Big Bang” in the opening decades of the 1900s.  Now a familiar term, it was, for a time, a term of derision for Father Lemaitre’s ideas.  The joke eventually became the household term for a “standard model” of early cosmology because in the latter half of the 20^th century, the Big Bang went from pure hypothesis to established theory.  This came to pass with the discovery of the predicted presence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – the “echo” of the Big Bang.  Here is the scientific evidence for an experiential premise for a valid and meaningful Ontological argument.  Kant’s objection to a priori ontology is overcome with this empirical (a posteriori) evidence supporting such ontology.

The Church has long believed in the use of reason as a valuable tool in the exploration of our faith; modern cosmology is a very important nexus, because if we can show that it is reasonable to believe in a transcendent first cause, then we can engage secular society concerning moral realism – as opposed to a morality based on biological determinism or other derivatives of philosophical nominalism.   The relevance of a Creator to human existence makes possible an intellectual evangelism.   Relevance overcomes the relativism prevalent in modern Western thought.  When we have established a purpose to life, we can show through revelation in the Logos – the expression of redeeming love for creation from that creator – that there are precepts that have absolute value because they come from the absolute existence. We can truly begin to answer the questions of life based on the revealed virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love, and we learn to engage in the most loving act there is:  Helping others to reach the ultimate good, which is an eternity of the beatific vision.  It all began with a Big Bang, but it ends with us returning gently to our loving creator and our own beatific vision.  Creation itself urges us to share Christ, the Logos, with all people, bringing them to this ultimate home of perfect beauty.  Regardless of how we are called to serve, this is what we are called to do.

by Magis contributor Robert Kurland, PhD

“One question in science is not  ' is this hypothetical model true' but "is this model better than the alternatives'...If we believe dogmatically in a particular view, then no amount of contradictory data will convince us otherwise...” John Skilling, “Foundations and Algorithms” in Bayesian Methods in Cosmology.

This is the last, and the most important, of the posts summarizing George Ellis's article. Before addressing the philosophic issues themselves, some preliminary remarks are in order. First, because of space limitations, the summary has been selective; a number of technical issues have not been discussed; if a reader is interested in these, I'd recommend the original article, via the web link given in the first post. Second, contrary to some comments on these posts and in the discussion, neither Ellis nor I are making any arguments for theism or anti-atheism; philosophic alternatives are presented, and if a reader draws theological conclusion from these alternatives, that's up to him/her. Third, no values for evidential probability (in the post on Anthropic Coincidences) have been presented; indeed, Ellis argues (and I agree) that inferring an evidential probability for one datum (our universe) is not a valid procedure. Fourth, the general focus of the article, and my emphasis in these posts, is on what can science say about cosmology and what philosophic assumptions underlie such scientific conclusions.

Ellis gives as an important criteria for a scientific theory that it be empirically testable. Let me add that my position may be even stronger than that of Ellis: if a theory cannot be confirmed by quantitative measurements then it is not in my view (and that of Fr. Stanley Jaki), science, but something else—mathematical metaphysics? What can be confirmed by measurement is limited by the time, distance and physics horizons mentioned in the first post. Using electromagnetic radiation we cannot see further back in time than when radiation decoupled from matter, about 380,000 years after the origin. We cannot see further in space than given by the distance horizon, the distance at which space will be expanding at faster than the speed of light. We cannot duplicate the tremendous energies present in the initial, quantum stages of the beginning of the universe (these energies are orders of magnitude greater than even the huge energies that will be available in the SLAC Hadron supper collider), so we cannot test projected theories of particle creation. What can be measured are inferred consequences of various theories: what the cosmic background radiation (CBR) shows about homogeneity, isotropy, fluctuations, the cosmological constant (lambda, representing expansion pressure), etc. A recent example is the report of Gurzadyan and Penrose of rings in the CBR representing cataclysmic events pre-Big Bang (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869#story_continues_1) One may disagree with the aspects of the theory, but the tie-in with measured data is commendable.

Ellis gives a series of theses for his position on philosophic issues and these are presented at the end of this post, to give a complete summary. The theses in Issue F, “The explicit philosophic basis”, will be presented in detail. As a preliminary and review, here are theses pertinent to the science of cosmology (NOTE: the theses are taken directly from the article even though no quotation marks are present):

• THESIS A1: The universe itself cannot be subjected to physical experimentation.  We cannot re-run the universe with the same or altered conditions to see what would happen if they were different , so we cannot carry out scientific experiments on the universe itself.

• THESIS A2: The universe cannot be observationally compared with other universes.  We cannot compare the universe with any similar object, nor can we test our hypotheses about it by observations determining statistical properties of a known class of physically existing universes.

• THESIS B3: Establishing a Robertson-Walker geometry for the universe relies on plausible philosophic assumptions. The deduction of spatial homogeneity follows not directly from astronomical data but because we add to the observations a philosophical principle that is plausible but untestable.

In Thesis B3, Ellis refers to the notion that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous (on a large scale). From our vantage point, we can see that the CBR (cosmic background radiation) yields this result; but to show that the inference is valid for the universe as a whole, we would need to make the same observation from at least two other (far removed) vantage points. However, if the Copernican Principle is invoked that we do not occupy a special place in the universe (this is the philosophic principle Ellis refers to in Thesis B3), then what see is equivalent to what would be seen from other positions, and the homogeneity and isotropy is demonstrated.

• THESIS B6: Observational horizons limit our ability to observationally determine the very large scale geometry of the universe.  We can only see back to the time of decoupling of matter and radiation and so have no direct information about earlier times; and unless we live in a 'small universe', most of the matter in the universe is hidden behind the visual horizon. Conjectures as to its geometry on larger scales cannot be observationally tested. The situation is completely different in the small universe case: then we can see everything there is in the universe, including our own galaxy at earlier times.

The notion of a “small universe” is intriguing and one that has measurable consequences. We won't comment on it further here, but will in a future discussion topic.

• THESIS C1: The Physics Horizon limits our knowledge of physics relevant to the very early universe. We cannot experimentally test much of the physics that is important in the very early universe because we cannot attain the required energies in accelerators on Earth. We have to extrapolate from known physics to the unknown and then test the implications; to do this, we assume some specific features of known lower energy physics are the true key to how things are at higher energies. We cannot experimentally test if we have got it right. 

• THESIS C2: The unknown nature of the inflation means inflationary universe proposals are incomplete. The promise of inflationary theory in terms of relating cosmology to particle physics has not been realized. This will only be the case when the nature of the inflaton (the particle representing the scalar force causing inflation) has been pinned down to a specific field that experiment confirms or particle physics requires to exist.

• THESIS D2: Testable physics cannot explain the initial state and hence specific nature of the universe. 

"A choice between different contingent possibilities has somehow occurred; the fundamental issue is what underlies this choice. Why does the universe have one specific form rather than another, when other forms consistent with physical laws seem perfectly possible? The reason underlying the choice between different contingent possibilities for the universe (why one occurred rather than another) cannot be explained scientifically. It is an issue to be examined through philosophy or metaphysics. (emphasis added).

This last proposition is, I believe, the most important of those Ellis sets forth.

• THESIS E1: Physical laws may depend on the nature of the universe.

Ellis is saying here that the fundamental constants (e.g. the fine-structure constant, the gravitational constant may vary in time and space). It is a philosophical assumption that they remain constant. (Note: one recent finding, which is controversial, suggests that there is an asymmetric variation through space [and time] in the fine-structure constant.)

 We now come to the explicit philosophical issues.

• THESIS F1: Philosophic choices necessarily underlie cosmological theory. Unavoidable metaphysical issues inevitably arise, in both observational and physical cosmology. Philosophical choices are needed in order to shape the theory.

Ellis sets forth the following criteria for a good scientific theory:

1. Satisfactory structure:  a) internal consistency, b) simplicity (Ockham's razor), and c) aesthetic appeal ('beauty' or 'elegance')
2. Intrinsic explanatory power: a) logical tightness, b) scope of the theory—the ability to unify otherwise separate phenomena, and c) probability of the theory or model with respect to some well-defined measure.
3. Extrinsic explanatory power, or relatedness: a) connectedness to the rest of science, b) extendability providing a basis for further development;
4. Observational and experimental support, in terms of a) testability: the ability to make quantitative as well as qualitative predictions that can be tested; and b) confirmation: the extent to which the theory is supported by such tests as have been made.” (emphasis added)

The last criterion in my view (and that of many other scientists and philosophers of science) is critical. If a theory cannot in principle be confirmed quantitatively it is not science, but belongs to other disciplines. These criteria are summarized in Thesis F2:

• THESIS F2: Criteria of satisfactoriness for theories cannot be scientifically chosen or validated. Criteria of satisfactoriness are necessary for choosing good cosmological theories; these criteria have to be chosen on the basis of philosophical considerations. They should include criteria for satisfactory structure of the theory, intrinsic explanatory power, and observational and experimental support.

• THESIS F3: Conflicts will inevitably arise in applying criteria for satisfactory cosmological theories. Philosophical criteria for satisfactory cosmological theories will in general come into conflict with each other, so that one will have to choose between them to some degree; this choice will shape the resulting theory.

Ellis elaborates on this last thesis:

“The thrust of much recent development has been away from observational tests towards strongly theoretical based proposals, indeed sometimes almost discounting observational tests. (emphasis added) At present this is being corrected by a healthy move to detailed observational analysis of the proposed theories, marking a maturity of the subject.”

• THESIS F4: The physical reason for believing in inflation is its explanatory power as regards structure growth in the universe. ... This theory has been vindicated spectacularly through observations of the CBR and matter power spectra. It is this explanatory power that makes it so acceptable to physicists,even though the underlying physics is neither well-defined nor tested, and its major large-scale observational predictions are untestable. (emphasis added).

Expanding on Thesis F4, Ellis adds:

“Inflation provides a causal model that brings a wider range of phenomena into what can be explained by cosmology (Criterion 2b), rather than just assuming the initial data had a specific restricted form. Explaining flatness (omega0 approximately 1, as predicted by inflation) and homogeneity reinforces the case, even though these are philosophical rather than physical problems (they [the initial restricted conditions] do not contradict any physical law; things could just have been that way). However claims on the basis of this model as to what happens very far outside the visual horizon (as in the chaotic inflationary theory) results from prioritizing theory over the possibility of observational and experimental testing. It will never be possible to prove these claims are correct.” (emphasis added)

Ellis asks, “how much should we try to explain” with cosmology? What should the scope of cosmology include?

• THESIS F5:Cosmological theory can have a wide or narrow scope of enquiry. The scope we envisage for our cosmological theory shapes the questions we seek to answer. The cosmological philosophical base becomes more or less dominant in shaping our theory according to the degree that we pursue a theory with more or less ambitious explanatory aims in terms of all of physics, geometry and underlying fundamental causation.

Elaborating on this point, Ellis says

“...The study of expansion of the universe and structure formation from nucleosynthesis to the present day is essential and well-informed. The philosophical stance adapted is minimal and highly plausible. The understanding of physical processes at earlier times, back to quantum gravity, is less well-founded. The philosophical stance is more significant and more debatable. Developments in the quantum gravity era are highly speculative, the philosophical position adapted is dominant because experimental and observational limits on the theory are lacking.” (emphasis added)....the basic underlying cosmological questions are

1. Why do the laws of physics have the form they do? Issues arise such as what makes particular laws work? for example, what governs the behaviour of a proton, the pull of gravity?...

2. Why do boundary conditions have the form they do? (Note: I would inject here Roger Penrose's speculation as to why the intial region from which the universe grew was so uniform, that is, whence the Second Law)..

3. Why do laws of physics at all exist? This relates to unsolved issues concerning the nature of the laws of physics: are they descriptive or prescriptive? ...Is the nature of matter really mathematically based in some sense, or does it just happen that its behaviour can be described in a mathematical way?

4. Why does anything exist? </span><span>This profound existential question is a mystery whatever approach we take.

5. Why does the universe allow the existence of intelligent life? This of somewhat different character than the others and largely rests on them but is important enough to generate considerable debate in its own right. (Note: this question is that related to the Anthropic Principle--# 4 in this series.)

 The status of all these questions is philosophical rather than scientific, for they cannot be resolved purely scientifically. How many of them—if any—should we consider in our construction of and assessments of cosmological theories?”

The next important question Ellis considers is how well does science, particularly cosmology, represent reality.

“It follows...that there are limits to what the scientific method can achieve in explanatory terms. We need to respect these limits and acknowledge clearly when arguments and conclusions are based on some philosophical stance rather than on purely testable scientific argument. If we acknowledge this and make that stance explicit , then the bases for different viewpoints are clear and alternatives can be argued rationally.”

• THESIS F6: Reality is not fully reflected in either observations or theoretical models. Problems arise from confusion of epistemology (the theory of knowledge) with ontology (the nature of existence) existence is not always manifest clearly in the available evidence. The theories and models of reality we use as our basis for understanding are necessarily partial and incomplete reflections of the true nature of reality, helpful in many ways but also inevitably misleading in others. They should not be confused with reality itself!”

“it may be suggested that arguments ignoring the need for experimental/observational verification of theories ultimately arise because these theories are being confused with reality, or at least are being taken as completely reliable total representation of reality. (emphasis added). This occurs in

• Confusing computer simulations of reality with reality itself, when they can in fact represent only a highly simplified and stylized version of what actually is.

• Confusing the laws of physics themselves with their abstract mathematical representation (if indeed they [the laws] are ontologically real)...or confusing a construction of the human mind (“Laws of Physics”) with the reliable behaviour of ponderable matter...

• Confusing theoretically based outcomes of models with proven observational results (e.g. claiming the universe necessarily has flat special sections (omega0 =1) and so this can be taken for granted, when the value of omega0 can and should be observationally determined precisely because this then tests that prediction.)”

Another  important question Ellis addresses is whether infinities are physically realizable or mathematical constructs. He agrees with the renowned 20th century mathematician David Hilbert that infinity is not a real quantity:

“Our principal result is that 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 .. . which transcends all experience and which completes the concrete as a totality . . .” (quote is from Hilbert).

Since one can never count an infinite number of objects, the claim that the universe is infinite or that there are an infinite number of universes in a multiverse can never be tested or confirmed.

• THESIS I2: The often claimed physical existence of infinities is questionable. The claimed existence of physically realized infinities in cosmology or multiverses raises problematic issues. One can suggest they are unphysical; in any case such claims are certainly unverifiable.

Ellis concludes that there is much uncertainty in what one can infer from cosmology, and those inferences one draws are based on the philosophical basis one uses. More importantly, the stance one takes should be related to the totality of man's existence in the universe.

“Firstly, even in order to understand just the material world, it can be claimed that one needs to consider forms of existence other than the material only — for example a Platonic world of mathematics and a mental world, both of which can be claimed to exist and be causally effective in terms of affecting the material world. Our understanding of local causation will be incomplete unless we take them into account.

 Secondly, in examining these issues one needs to take into account data about the natures of our existence that come from our daily lives and the broad historical experience of humanity (our experiences of ethics and aesthetics, for example), as well as those discoveries attained by the scientific method. Many writings claim there is no purpose in the universe: it is all just a conglomerate of particles proceeding at a fundamental level in a purposeless and meaningless algorithmic way. But I would reply, the very fact that those writers engage in such discourse undermines their own contention; they ignore the evidence provided by their own actions. There is certainly meaning in the universe to this degree: the fact they take the trouble to write such contentions is proof that they consider it meaningful to argue about such issues; and this quality of existence has emerged out of the nature of the physical universe (Sec.7.3). Indeed the human mind is causally effective in the real physical world precisely through many activities motivated by meanings perceived by the human mind. Any attempt to relate physics and cosmology to ultimate issues must take such real world experience seriously, otherwise it will simply be ignoring a large body of undeniable data. This data does not resolve the ultimate issues, but does indicate dimensions of existence that indeed do occur.”

With respect to the significance of cosmology, Ellis concludes

• THESIS OF UNCERTAINTY: Ultimate uncertainty is a key aspect of cosmology. Scientific exploration can tell us much about the universe, but not about its ultimate nature, or even much about some if its major geometrical and physical characteristics. Some of this uncertainty may be resolved, but much will remain. Cosmological theory should acknowledge this uncertainty. 

A final thought of my own: Ellis's review of the philosophical issues underlying cosmology is a most useful antidote to more grandiose presentations that ignore considerations of epistemology and metaphysics. Although in this article he touches only lightly on the place of man in the cosmos, he has also written a short book, “Before the Beginning-Cosmology Explained”, that addresses this question and theological considerations more fully. The book also gives a much simpler (ground up from basic physics) summary of the science in cosmology than that in the article.

SUMMARY TABLE OF ISSUES AND THESES

Issue A: The uniqueness of the universe

Thesis A1: The universe itself cannot be subjected to physical experimentation

Thesis A2: The universe cannot be observationally compared with other universes

Thesis A3: The concept of ‘Laws of Physics’ that apply to only one object is questionable

Thesis A4: The concept of probability is problematic in the context of existence of only one object

Issue B: The large scale of the Universe in space and time

Thesis B1: Astronomical observations are confined to the past null cone, and fade with distance

Thesis B2: ‘Geological’ type observations can probe the region near our past world line in the very distant past

Thesis B3: Establishing a Robertson-Walker geometry relies on plausible philosophical assumptions

Thesis B4: Interpreting cosmological observations depends on astrophysical understanding

Thesis B5: A key test for cosmology is that the age of the universe must be greater than the ages of stars

Thesis B6: Horizons limit our ability to observationally determine the very large scale geometry of the universe

Thesis B7: We have made great progress towards observational completeness

Issue C: The unbound energies in the early universe

Thesis C1: The Physics Horizon limits our knowledge of physics relevant to the very early universe

Thesis C2: The unknown nature of the inflaton means inflationary universe proposals are incomplete

Issue D: Explaining the universe — the question of origins

Thesis D1: An initial singularity may or may not have occurred

Thesis D2: Testable physics cannot explain the initial state and hence specific nature of the universe

Thesis D3: The initial state of the universe may have been special or genera

Issue E: The Universe as the background for existence

Thesis E1: Physical laws may depend on the nature of the universe

Thesis E2: We cannot take the nature of the laws of physics for granted

Thesis E3: Physical novelty emerges in the expanding universe

Issue F: The explicit philosophical basis

Thesis F1: Philosophical choices necessarily underly cosmological theory

Thesis F2: Criteria for choice between theories cannot be scientifically chosen or validated

Thesis F3: Conflicts will inevitably arise in applying criteria for satisfactory theories

Thesis F4: The physical reason for believing in inflation is its explanatory power re structure growth.

Thesis F5: Cosmological theory can have a wide or narrow scope of enquiry

Thesis F6: Reality is not fully reflected in either observations or theoretical models

Issue G: The Anthropic question: fine tuning for life

Thesis G1: Life is possible because both the laws of physics and initial conditions have a very special nature

Thesis G2: Metaphysical uncertainty remains about ultimate causation in cosmology

Issue H: The possible existence of multiverses

Thesis H1: The Multiverse proposal is unprovable by observation or experiment

Thesis H2: Probability-based arguments cannot demonstrate the existence of multiverses

Thesis H3: Multiverses are a philosophical rather than scientific proposal

Thesis H4: The underlying physics paradigm of cosmology could be extended to include biological insights

Issue I: The natures of existence

Thesis I1: We do not understand the dominant dynamical matter components of the universe at early or late times

Thesis I2: The often claimed physical existence of infinities is questionable

Thesis I3: A deep issue underlying the nature of cosmology is the nature of the laws of physics.

Thesis of Uncertainty: Ultimate uncertainty is one of the key aspects of cosmology

By Magis Contributor Robert Kurland, PhD

(This topic is presented as #4, rather than that on multiverses, since the presence of multiverses is often invoked as a partial explanation of the anthropic coincidences.)

The presence of organic life in the universe (namely us) requires a series of unlikely happenings and values for physical laws and their constants.   This “fine-tuning” (as it's been called) has been likened to a room full of 10,000 dials, each of which has to be set to a precise setting in order to achieve action; 10,000 monkeys are let into the room and each adjusts a dial and, lo, action occurs.   The set of coincidences was termed “The Anthropic Principle” by Brandon Carter in 1973, when he introduced it in a conference to oppose the “Copernican Principle”, that man has no special place in the universe.

The Anthropic Principle has been discussed extensively in books and articles.  Fr. Spitzer has an excellent summary in “New Proofs for the Existence of God”.  There is a concise summary by Robert Koons on his philosophy lectures website:http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html, giving various interpretations, with arguments for and against each.  A good collection of articles with different (and opposing views) of the Anthropic Principle is given in God and Design  (ed. Neil Manson).   There are many versions of the Anthropic Principle ranging from the Weak Anthropic Principle, WAP, which tautologically observes that if the universe weren't fit for us to be here we would wouldn't be discussing the principle, through the Strong Anthropic Principle, SAP, that the universe has been fine-tuned for intelligent life (us), on up to the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (by Martin Gardner—you complete the acronym).

In assessing the improbable nature of the anthropic coincidences, some authors assign a specific  probability to the value of some particular physical constant.  Such assignment is not always justified,  because probability considerations are ill defined, in the usual sense of evidential probability.   For example, theoretical calculations have shown that if the strong nuclear force were 2 % higher or 2 % lower, then the elements as we know them would not have been formed.  This does not mean that the probability of having the strong nuclear force at an anthropic value is 4%.  In order to give a probability for this range, the population distribution of the parameters for the strong nuclear force would have to be known.  Moreover, there is a difficulty in using probability in an after-the-fact, rather than a predictive sense.  The way to use probabilities in assessing the anthropic coincidences is via Bayesian probability techniques, with well-defined prior assumptions, and to use the resulting Bayesian probability as a measure of belief.

Ellis, in his presentation of the anthropic coincidences, focuses on the special nature of physical laws that allow for the presence of life, rather than on their improbability:

“One of the most profound issues in cosmology is the Anthropic question...why does the Universe has the very special nature required in order that life can exist? The point is that a great deal of “fine tuning” is required in order that life be possible.  There are many relationships embedded in physical laws that are not explained by physics, but are required for life to be possible;  in particular various fundamental constants are highly constrained in their values if life as we know it is to exist...What requires explanation is why the laws of physics are such as to allow this complex functionality (life) to work.  ...We can conceive of universes where the laws of physics (and so of chemistry) were different than in ours.  Almost any change in these laws will prevent life as we know it from functioning.”

Ellis posits as a first requirement for the laws of physics “the kind of regularities that can underlie the existence of life”;   laws that are not based on symmetry and variational principles are unlikely to produce the kind of complexity that would be required for life. He also sets up general conditions that allow for organic life and cosmological boundary/initial conditions.    In this respect he cites the following as necessary:

• “Quantization that stabilizes matter and allows chemistry to exist through the Pauli exclusion principle;
• The number D of large spatial dimensions must be just 3 for complexity to exist.
• The seeds in the early universe for fluctuations (quantum fluctuations) that will later grow into galaxies must be of the right size that structures form without collapsing into black holes...
• The size of the universe and its age must be large enough...we need a sufficiently old universe for second generation stars to come into existence and then for planets to have a stable life for long enough that evolution could lead to the emergence of intelligent life.  Thus the universe must be at about 15 billion years old for life to exist.
• There must be non-interference with local systems.  The concept of locality is fundamental, allowing local systems to function effectively independently of the detailed structure of the rest of the Universe.  We need the universe and the galaxies in it to be largely empty, and gravitational waves and tidal forces to be weak enough, so that local systems can function in a largely isolated way.
• The existence of the arrow of time, and of laws like the second law of thermodynamics, are probably necessary for evolution and for consciousness.  This depends on boundary conditions at the beginning and end of the Universe.
• Presumably the emergence of a classical era out of a quantum state is required.   The very early universe would be a domain where quantum physics would dominate leading to complete uncertainty and an inability to predict the consequence of any initial situation; we need this to evolve to a state where classical physics leads to the [roperties of regularity and predictability that allow order to emerge.
• The fact that the night sky is dark...is a consequence of the expansion of the universe together with the photon (light particle) to baryon (mass particle) ratio.  This feature is a necessary condition for the existence of life:  the biosphere on Earth functions by disposing of waste energy to the heat sink of the dark night sky.  Thus one way of explaining why the sky is observed to be dark at night is that if this were not so, we would not be here to observe it.
• Physical conditions on planets must be a in a quasi-equilibrium state for long enough to allow the delicate balances that enable our existence, through the very slow process of evolution, to be fulfilled.”

There are a number of other constraints, limited values for forces—gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear—and fundamental constants, including that for particle masses and number of particles that are needed for life to evolve.  In summary, Ellis puts the Anthropic Principle as the following:

 “Life is possible because both the laws of physics and the boundary conditions for the universe have a very special nature. only particular laws of physics, and particular initial conditions in the Universe, allow the existence of intelligent life of the kind we know.  No evolutionary process whatever is possible for any kind of life if these laws and conditions do not have this restricted form.”

The philosophic/metaphysical context for these Anthropic conditions that Ellis sets forth will be given in the final post for this summary.   It should be noted that one interpretation of the anthropic coincidences is the theory that infinitely many universes with potentially different physical laws and constants exist and so it is not unlikely that in all these one universe with appropriate conditions for life would be present.    The analogy is like that of having a lottery ticket with the numbers 1 1  1  1  1 be the winner.   That combination of numbers looks improbable, but since there are a whole host of numbers from 00000  to 99999, it is no less probable than any other number.

Planetary Highlights:

Jupiter

This week most of the action is centered around Jupiter as the south equatorial band continues to darken and the "Great Red Spot" better known to us earthlings as not just the storm of the century but instead the storm of the last four centuries! Imagine living on a solid surface on Jupiter and listening to the daily weather report " High winds aloft gusts at ground level around 400 to 500 miles per hour. Winds should dissapte and then return in just a few days. Storm to continue for several more hundred earth years." Here is a picture taken by an amatuer of the start of the return of the band.

The Red Spot crosses the central Meridian of Jupiter tonight at 10.18pm EST.

Check it out if you can and weather willing.

Mars

While we obviously have a lot to discuss about Mars that will be saved for a later time when it is in better view. However Mars is being occulted or covered by a setting crescent moon. You will need a telescope and a viewing point with an unobstructed view of the horizon. Mars is a fairly bright red dot. It will be covered up by the moon for just about an hour.

Mercury

Tiny Mercury can be seen this first two weeks of December. Look in the Southwest sky just after sunset (30 mins.) and you will see a bright disk that is 60% lit. Use your telescope for best viewing. Mercury is of course the planet closest to the Sun so it like Venus can either be seen at sunset or just before sunrise.

A photo of the planet Mercury

Orion and Lunar Eclipse

I am very interested to see how many readers of this article went out and looked at Orion's nebula? Let me know your comments.Because this nebula is so thoroughly studied I thought I might fill in more details in our next installment. Just a taste we are actually studying stars inside the nursery that are less than 1 million years old.

Remember, Keep Looking Up!

Merrill

By Magis Contributor Robert Kurland, PhD

In addition to Ellis's article, Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial web site gives a clear, accurate and detailed picture of how astronomical measurements give cosmological data:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

The following types of data are primary:  positions and luminosities of stars and galaxies (including x-ray, UV, visible, IR, microwave  and radio-frequency radiation ); wavelengths of spectral lines from these objects; Doppler shifts of such wavelengths  (shifts in the wavelength that depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation);  frequencies, intensities and polarizations of the microwave  cosmic background radiation (CBR).      

It's important to realize that there is, so to speak, a “ladder” of inferences of secondary data from these primary data.   For example, the distances of nearby stars (10-100 light years or so distant from us) can be estimated relatively accurately by parallax measurements.   From the intensity of light observed, one can then estimate accurately the intrinsic brightness of these stars.   One can then use other properties, at known distances, to set up what are called “standard candles”:  properties that relate to the intrinsic brightness, so that the intrinsic brightness can be inferred, to give from the observed intensity an inferred distance.   Various standard candles are used at  various distances, including cepheid variables to supernovae and galactic lensing of quasars.  (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder).       One of the first standard candles was the intrinsic brightness of the Cepheid variables.   Hubble used these to estimate the distance of stellar objects and to construct his plot of red shift versus distance, which was the basis for the expanding universe theory.   Since that time more accurate measures have given very good linear relation between red-shift (velocity moving away from us) and distance from us.

One can also count the number of objects within the field of view and from this make an estimate of the total number of objects to be seen, and thus infer the total (baryonic—ordinary) mass.  From this astronomical data one can infer the following: the actual ratio of matter to a critical value;  this ratio is designated “omega 0” (with uppercase Greek letter).   If omega 0 is >1, space-time is positively curved  (like a sphere) and the universe expansion will eventually turn into a collapse, for a “big crunch”;  if omega 0 is = 1  space-time is flat and the universe will expand in a uniform way;  for omega 0 <1  space-time is negatively curved (like a saddle) and the expansion rate will increase.    Measurements derived from the cosmic background radiation give (including both baryonic and dark matter--see below) a value for omega 0 = 1 (within 1%).   The baryonic matter is that which interacts with radiation;  the presence of so-called dark matter is inferred from rotational dynamics of galaxies and structures of galactic clusters.   Baryonic matter constitutes about 30% of the total, dark matter 70%.

Observations of red shifts from distant supernovae and from temperature anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation suggest that there is a “dark energy”, a pressure (as in the “lambda” constant in Einstein's original formulation)  that makes the  expansion of the universe accelerate.   (What this is saying is the expansion rate is slower for older, more distant objects, faster for more recent, closer objects, so there is an acceleration of the rate.)

The following observations, in addition to the red shift, confirm the picture of a universe expanding from a hot big bang:  the cosmic background radiation, the relative abundance of hydrogen to helium in the universe (about 3/1) and the lack of heavy elements in far distant galaxies.     The cosmic background radiation is like the embers of a burnt-out fire, the embers of the hot “Big Bang” spread evenly throughout the universe.   The small irregularities in the cosmic background radiation indicate the fluctuations that grew into stars and then galaxies.  The relative abundance of hydrogen to helium is consistent with models of element formation that took place at an early, high temperature stage of the universe.    For far distant galaxies (10 billion years light distance, say), they are also at an early stage of development (remember, going in distance is also going back in time) and therefore heavy elements have not yet formed by the collapse of red giant stars.

Ellis lists  (among  others) the following common misconceptions about the expanding universe:

Misconception 1: The universe is expanding into something. It is not, as it is all there is. It is just getting bigger, while always remaining all that is. .

Misconception 2: The universe expands from a specific point, which is the centre of the expansion. All spatial points are equivalent in these universes, and the universe expands equally about all of them. Every fundamental observer sees exactly the same thing in an exact RW geometry. There is no centre to a FL universe.

Misconception 3: Matter cannot recede from us faster than light. It can, at an instant; two distantly separated fundamental observers in a surface {t = const} can have a relative velocity greater than c if their spatial separation is large enough [183, 31]. No violation of special relativity is implied, as this is not a local velocity difference, and no information is transferred between distant galaxies moving apart at these speeds. For example, there is presently a sphere around us of matter receding from us at the speed of light;20 matter beyond this sphere is moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light. The matter that emitted the CBR was moving away from us at a speed of about 61c when it did so [183].

By Magis contributor Robert Kurland, PhD

As pointed out in a previous inxtallment, given the contracting size of the universe as one goes back to the origin, there will be a time such that quantum effects must come into play.  However, there are some basic limitations to using quantum mechanics as a theory for the origin of the universe.  As Ellis points out:

“The attempt to develop a fully adequate quantum gravity approach to cosmology is of course hampered by the lack of a fully adequate theory of quantum gravity, as well as by the problems at the foundation of quantum theory (the measurement problem, collapse of the wave function, etc.)”

The measurement problem is at the heart of difficulties in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.    The quantum mechanical state function can be represented as a superposition of several possible states that could be measured—when the measurement is made and a particular state results, then the superposition “collapses” into the state that is measured (e.g. Schrodinger's dead and live cat paradox).     An associated difficulty is the probability interpretation for measurement:  the universe  state function (wave function) gives probabilities that particular values of dynamical variables will be  measured—what does probability mean in this context; are there an infinite number of possible universes (corresponding to various possible measurements) and who does the measurement?   To quote Christopher Isham (referring to the measurement problem):

“This poses the obvious problems of (i) when is an interaction between two systems to count as a measurement by one system of a property of the other? and (ii) what happens if there is an attempt to restore a degree of unity by describing the measurement process in quantum mechanical terms rather than the language of classical physics which is normally used?   There is no universally accepted answer to either of these questions.” (emphasis added).

That being said, the following quantum mechanical models have been proposed for the origin of the universe  (the list is not exhaustive, and only general comments on each will be given; for more information please see the cited articles by Isham and Grib):

1)              Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum (Tryon, 1979).

2)              Tunneling from “superspace” into “real” space-time (Vilenkin, 1982)

3)              The Hartle-Hawking Block Universe, replacement of t by ti(i=square root of -1) (Hartle, Hawking,  1981)

4)              Chaotic Inflation (for a description of cosmological “inflation", see below; Linde, 1986)

5)              The Participatory Universe (Wheeler, 1990)

6)              Creation from non-Boolean logic to Boolean by an “observer” (Grib,1990)

Note that in none of these (except possibly 3 or 5) was the creation “ex nihilo”; for 1, the vacuum pre-existed; for 2 the “superspace” (a hypothetical space of multi-dimensions); for 4, previous universes from which a “bubble” universe emerged via inflation; for 6, a hypothetical space of quantum universe states.  

For 3, the Hartle-Hawking model, the replacement of t by ti gives a term t^2 instead of -t^2  in the quantum mechanical equation, which enables the quantum mechanical equation to be solved without a singularity.    The variable t becomes space-like, rather than time-like at very early values, and the space-like ti gradually becomes a time-like variable (goes back to t) as the value of t increases.  An exact value for the time of origin becomes undefined (where does the earth start, at the South pole?).    A diagram fromhttp://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_cosmic_universe.asp illustrates the time-line involved  (vertical axis is increasing “t”).   Note that there is no experimental justification for the replacement of t by ti;  the justification is “esthetic”, that is the substitution removes the singularity at t=0.

In order to understand the significance of models  5 (the Particpatory Universe of John Wheeler) and 6 (the quantum logic model of Andrej Grib), a comment on an interpretation of quantum mechanics   that links qm to consciousness will be helpful.    (A general discussion of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics is beyond the scope of this summary}.

The Participatory Universe and Quantum Logic models stem from the interpretation, first set forth by Von Neumann, London and Wigner, that since measurement is done by an observer, the final step in the measurement process must be awareness of the measurement result by the consciousness of the observer, which therefore must be an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics.    Wheeler construes the basic relation to consciousness  to imply a universe that is information (It from bits), and that by looking back in time, we create the past universe,  as symbolized in the famous icon at this web site:  http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/wheeleru.gif

Grib's quantum logic model invokes a reality of non-Boolean logic that we (as observers) convert to Boolean logic situations, which is the only type of logic that our minds can comprehend. Grib speculates that perhaps it was God who made the initial observation to create a “real” universe (one perceived according to Boolean logic).   According to Grib, time is a framework (lattice) for arraying the non-Boolean events in a framework that can be scanned as Boolean, and quantum mechanics is the theory for converting the non-Boolean system to Boolean.

It should be clear that none of these models can be confirmed or denied by measurements, so in that respect they are outside the realm of science, but properly belong to the domain of mathematical metaphysics  (my take).

One development of quantum cosmology that does have measurable consequences is the notion of inflation introduced by Guth (1981), here explained by Ellis:

“Particle physics processes dominated the very early eras, when exotic processes took place such as the condensation of a quark-gluon plasma to produce baryons. Quantum field theory effects were significant then, and this leads to an important possibility: scalar fields producing repulsive gravitational effects could have dominated the dynamics of the universe at those times. This leads to the theory of the inflationary universe, proposed by Alan Guth ...an extremely short period of accelerating expansion will precede the hot big bang era [11]. This produces a very cold and smooth vacuum-dominated state, and ends in ‘reheating’: conversion of the scalar field to radiation, initiating the hot big bang epoch. This inflationary process is claimed to explain the puzzles mentioned above (Sec.2.4.1): why the universe is so special (with spatially homogeneous and isotropic geometry and a very uniform distribution of matter), and also why the space sections are so close to being flat at present (we still do not know the sign of the spatial curvature), which requires very fine tuning of initial conditions at very early times.   (emphasis added) Inflationary expansion explains these features because particle horizons in inflationary FL models will be much larger than in the standard models with ordinary matter, allowing causal connection of matter on scales larger than the visual horizon, and inflation also will sweep topological defects outside the visible domain.”

Inflation also explains the rarity (absence) of magnetic monopoles (predicted by the standard model of particle physics), the presence of stars/galaxies (from quantum fluctuations expanded by inflation) and several features of the observed CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation).    The projected time scale for the inflationary period is from about 10^-36s after the origin to about 10^-32s, during which period the volume increased by a factor of at least 10^78.   As pointed out above, the source of the inflationary increase is an assumed force, a scalar field or isotropic negative pressure, counteracting the force of gravity. Although the notion of inflation explains many puzzling features about our universe, not all physicists are satisfied with this explanation.   Other explanations have been offered, and as Ellis says:

“The promise of inflationary theory in terms of relating cosmology to particle physics has not been realized. This will only be the case when the nature of the inflaton (the hypothetical particle corresponding to the scalar inflationary field).  has been pinned down to a specific field that experiment confirms or particle physics requires to exist.outside the visible domain.” (emphasis in the original).

Roger Penrose also has misgivings about inflationary theory, primarily due to what he thinks is a misplaced motivation for applying the theory to explain flatness and homogeneity:

“In the standard model these issues (the flatness, horizon and smoothness problems) are handled by the 'fine-tuning' of the initial Big Bang state, and this is regarded by inflationists as “ugly”.   The claim is that the need for such fine tuning is removed in the inflationary picture and this is regarded as a more aesthetically pleasing physical  picture.”  (<Road to Reality, p.754)

It should be understood that in this context, “aesthetically pleasing” corresponds to the absence of an intelligent designer to set the “fine-tuning”,  that is to say the absence of a creative God, or, alternatively, the absence of an as yet unknown “theory of everything” that would set the fine-tuning by some universal physical law (my take).

Philosophical Issues in Cosmology—Part 1 by Magis contributor Robert Kurland, PhD.

“ It looks full of hard words and signs and numbers, not very entertaining or understandable looking, and I wonder whether it will make people wiser or better." So wrote a cousin of Josiah Willard Gibbs when she happened onto a copy of his most famous paper on thermodynamics lying on his desk.  As quoted from Order and Chaos, a book on thermodynamics by Angrist and Hepler.

In this summary of a review article  on cosmology and philosophy by George R.F. Ellis, a theoretical physicist at Capetown University, I will try to explain “the hard words and signs”, and give Ellis's balanced appraisal of what cosmology can tell us about creation (a much more balanced and complete appraisal, in my opinion,  than is Hawking's “The Grand Design”).    I have also included (in the section on quantum mechanical  cosmological theories) material from articles by Christopher Isham and Andrej Grib in “Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature”. 

I should preface this summary with a disclaimer: I am no expert at the  level of theoretical physics, general relativity particularly, required for cosmological analysis.  Galaxies and the Universe are above my pay grade (set at nuclear magnetons), but I can follow Ellis's presentation and especially make sense of his remarks about what is science and what is philosophy.  Here is a link to his home page, to establish his bona fides:   http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/.   Here's a link to the article archived on the web: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602280. 

Ellis  assumes as a basic starting point,  that in science one validates theories by measurement (preferably repeated), and that if a theory can't be confirmed by measurement then it belongs to philosophy/metaphysics.  What follows will be my take on what Ellis tells us about 1) intrinsic limitations to what cosmology can tell us about the universe and its origins; 2) what cosmological theories say about the origin of the Universe; 3) what measurements tell us about the origin of the universe; 4) how some cosmological theories (including those for multiverses) are, for the most part, speculative and therefore lie in the domain of philosophy/metaphysics; 5) what cosmology has to tell us about the universe being “fine-tuned”, that is, about the anthropic coincidences;  6) what philosophical/metaphysical interpretations are open to us.  Parts 1-3 will be background, foundational material.   Ellis's inferences from these for  philosophy/metaphysics will be parts 4,5 and 6.   Not all that is in the article will be covered in this summary, and much has been simplified.  Other web references have also been given.

1)    Intrinsic limitations:

• We can't step outside the universe or duplicate it as an experimental object;
• We explore the universe by electromagnetic radiation (from radio to gamma rays),  which limits the distance out and, correspondingly, the past time for which measurements can be made.  This limitation is of two types.  

◦      The first is due to the coupling of matter and radiation at times before the universe was 380,000 years old (approximately), giving an opaque barrier at distances (times) corresponding to less than 380,000 years from the beginning.   This means that there is a time horizon--we cannot see further back in time than 380,000 years after the origin. 

◦      The second limitation is a distance horizon—if the universe expansion is uniform, such that the further a point is from us (and, correspondingly, the further back in time), the faster it is moving—then there will be a distance d, such a star at that distance d will be moving away from us at the speed of light, or faster.   This means that we cannot communicate at distances greater than d, since communication can only take place at the speed of light.

• An important consequence of the time horizon is that we cannot directly (by means of electromagnetic radiation) investigate what happened in the universe before the matter/radiation decoupling at 380,000 years.   Whatever happened during that time has to be inferred from the properties of the universe we determine after that time.  So theories about singularities, quantum origins, inflation can only be tested (if at all) by  predictions about  the state of our universe at times greater than or equal to 380,000 years from the origin.
• An important consequence of the distant horizon has to do with causality.   Two events cannot influence each other (since interactions cannot travel faster than the speed of light)  if they are further apart than the distance horizon.  This is one of the reasons that “inflation” is invoked in the very early life of the universe. (See below.) The  early universe was larger than the horizon distance d (speed of light times age of the universe), so the question is how was a causal relation retained between different parts of the early universe to give the same temperatures and densities  (approximately) between parts of the universe that were not causally connected.
• There is also a physics horizon.   The energies in the early stages of the Big Bang are so high that there is no way that these could be duplicated in the laboratory, by even high-energy colliders (despite the claims of popular science writers).
• The most important conclusion Ellis draws, is the following:

“Testable Physics cannot explain the initial state and hence  the specific nature of the universe.”

This means that what we conclude about the initial state of the universe will be in the domain of philosophy and metaphysics, guided by inferences about what may be possible from cosmology.

Happy Thanksgiving to those of you in the United States!

Here is a planetary roundup:

Jupiter

Jupiter is still dominating the night sky. It can be seen in the south eastern portion of the sky after sunset and remains easily observable by both binoculars and telescopes until just after 2:00 am in the northern hemisphere. Take a look and you should notice something missing . The dark equatorial band that we normally see even through binoculars is missing! This has happened before and is the result of a massive storm that may last for a couple of years. The benefit for earthlings however is that the great "red spot" will be easier to see. See if you can spot the"spot"!

Uranus

Uranus is still easily visible 3 degrees north of Jupiter.

Neptune

Neptune is a small bluish dot located in eastern Capricornus. Look due east right after sunset with powerful binoculars or a telescope. Here is an interesting fact. Neptune is virtually in the same spot of the sky as it was when discovered back in 1846. So, it has taken Neptune all this time to revolve around the Sun once! I believe that is 164 earth years. Wow! If you lived on Neptune you as a human wouldnt even live long enough to celebrate your first birthday! Take a look at the photograph.

Venus

Venus rises and blazes as the "Morning Star" one hour before Sunrise. Just look in the south east and you cant miss it.

Saturn

Saturn rises 1-2 hours before sunrise and climbs to about 30 degrees above the horizon. While it may have a shimmer to it because it is low in the horizon, you still should see the rings which have not been visible for two years. Why? Because they appeared edge-on to us earthly viewers.

Next week we are going to focus on the famous constellation of Orion "the hunter" and the amazing stellar nursery that is within reach of your binoculars!

Until then remember,

Keep Looking Up!

Merrill Butler, III

Want to learn more? Follow the link here.

MCRF Founder Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., has spent the past four days presenting his book "New Proofs for the Existence of God" to international leaders of the Youth Arise movement in Rome. According to Magis Chief of Staff Joan Jacoby, who accompanied Spitzer, "This trip has been beyond my wildest expectations."

Spitzer has visited with representatives from Uganda, Gibralter, Madrid and many other countries and we will be giving a full report of the conference early next week.

By Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.

Why would a preeminent physicist make the claim that “the universe can come from nothing?” This is precisely what Dr. Stephen Hawking has done in his new book, “The Grand Design,” when he notes, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This statement betrays Hawking’s fundamental assumption about the universe, namely that it came from nothing. But why would a preeminent physicist assume that the universe came from nothing? Presumably, because he believes that there are reasons for thinking that the universe had a beginning.

Let me put it in reverse: If one believes that there is significant evidence for a beginning of the universe then one is confronted with the question, “what was the universe before the beginning?” If the beginning is truly a point at which the universe came into existence then one is confronted by the fact that prior to the beginning, the whole physical universe was nothing.

What’s my point? If Dr. Hawking does not believe that there is any reason to think that the universe had a beginning (from physics or philosophy), then why does he even bother to speculate about how the universe could spontaneously create itself from nothing? I am left to assume that Dr. Hawking does believe there are reasons for thinking the universe had a beginning – otherwise his contention about “the universe coming from nothing” makes no sense.

It so happens that there is a considerable amount of evidence for a beginning of the universe from both physics and philosophy. In my new book “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy” (Eerdmans, 2010), I speak about compelling evidence for the beginning of a universe from space-time geometry (the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem 2003, and the Borde-Vilenkin Proof –1993) and from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). I also speak about the evidence of a beginning from the mathematical argument (implicit in the work of David Hilbert) against actual infinities constituting aggregative wholes. I am not certain whether Dr. Hawking has used these or other kinds of evidence to implicitly adduce a beginning of the universe, but it is difficult for me to believe that he has come to the threshold of metaphysics without any sense of one.

If we grant this, then the next step would be to examine the value of his metaphysical argument. Bear in mind here that Dr. Hawking has moved from the domain of physics to metaphysics (literally “beyond physics”) when he makes statements about “nothing” and “creation” and “the universe creating itself.” These metaphysical topics have been taken up since the time of Parmenides and Plato, and quite frankly, answered by them in a more consistent and rigorous way than Dr. Hawking. Why would I say this? Because these thinkers use the term “nothing” to mean “nothing” (i.e. “that which there is no such thing as”). Nothing should not be thought to be a vacuum or a void (which is dimensional and orientable – where you can have more or less space); and it is certainly not a physical law. Inasmuch as the laws of physics have real physical effects, they must be considered to be something physical.

Let’s take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above – the law of gravity. It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of “nothing.” Therefore, Dr. Hawking’s phrase should be restated to say something like, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe has unfolded and developed.” But what must be avoided are the rest of the statements – “can and will create itself from nothing” and “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,” etc. Now, if we rephrase Dr. Hawking’s statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something (i.e. the universe from physical laws such as the law of gravity).

But let’s go back to Dr. Hawking’s underlying assumption, namely that there are reasons to think that something came from nothing – namely, reasons for a beginning. How have philosophers and metaphysicians traditionally responded to this question? With what many term the first principle of metaphysics, “From nothing only nothing comes.” If you take nothing literally – that is if one acknowledges that there is no such thing as nothing, then one cannot attribute anything to nothing. One cannot attribute characteristics, actions, powers and so forth to nothing. In this absence of everything, one can only conclude that “only nothing can come from nothing.” What does this mean?

It means that if the physical universe had a beginning (a point at which it came into existence” then prior to that point it was nothing. And if it was nothing then it could not have created itself (because only nothing can come from nothing). So what does that imply? The very reality that Dr. Hawking wants to avoid, namely, a transcendent power which can cause the universe to come into existence.

Why should we consider this power to be transcendent (that is – transcending the universe as a whole)? Because if the universe was nothing prior to its beginning, then the reality which causes it to exist must be completely beyond it (independent of it). This transcendent reality which causes the universe as a whole to exist is frequently termed “creator” or “God.” In my view, Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing.

We’ve been talking to teachers across the country, and the consensus seems to be that a class on faith, reason and the origins of the universe best fits during the freshman and sophomore years. To that end, we’re creating a curriculum to be used in schools, confirmations classes and for home school families. Here’s a picture of the curriculum, which met on Friday afternoon at the Magis Center for Reason and Faith.

What age do you think is best? Teachers, students and parents - we’d love your input on this issue!

Reviewed by Magis Contributor Amy Cochran

Welcome to the Magis Center blog. It is our goal that this blog become one of the finest resources available online for information on astrophysics, reason, and faith. In the book “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy,” our founder, Father Robert Spitzer, S.J., PhD., explores recent developments in astrophysics and their implications for a transcendent Creator. What follows is a brief excerpt from the book. A longer excerpt is available here. 

Introduction  The last few years have seen several books championing agnosticism or atheism making their way into the popular press. These books leave most informed readers quite baffled, because they ignore the vast majority (if not the entirety) of the considerable evidence for theism provided by physics and philosophy during the last few decades. This evidence is capable of grounding reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power that stands at the origins of our universe or any hypothetically postulated multiverse. The main purpose of this book is to give a brief synopsis of this evidence to readers who are interested in exploring the strongest rational foundation for faith that has come to light in human history.The great physicist Sir Arthur Eddington remarked in his classic work, “The Nature of the Physical World:

“We all know that there are regions of the human spirit untrammeled by the world of physics. In the mystic sense of the creation around us, in the expression of art, in a yearning towards God, the soul grows upward and finds the fulfillment of something implanted in its nature. The sanction for this development is within us, a striving born with our consciousness or an Inner Light proceeding from a greater power than ours. Science can scarcely question this sanction, for the pursuit of science springs from a striving which the mind is impelled to follow, a questioning that will not be suppressed. Whether in the intellectual pursuits of science or in the mystical pursuits of the spirit, the light beckons ahead and the purpose surging in our nature responds.” (Eddington 1928, pp. 327-28.)

Perhaps this light is responsible for the persistent rational pursuit of ultimate grounds and causation which has been frequently associated with God since the time of Plato and Aristotle. Though there have been centuries of controversy about the legitimacy of these proofs (particularly from the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries), contemporary developments in physics, philosophy, and mathematics have led to a rekindled interest and an expanded pursuit of them.

In the twentieth century, David Hilbert (the father of finite mathematics) has given new probative force and depth to the argument for the intrinsic finitude of past time (implying a timeless Creator) in his article “On the Infinite.” Quantum Theory has expanded the horizons of ontology by obliging it to contend with non-location and information fields, which, in their turn, have given new evidence for non-materialistic (information-like) dimensions of physical reality. The General Theory of Relativity has forced us to re-envision the universe as a dynamically integrated finite whole in contradistinction to Newton’s infinite universe of mass points in empty space.

Big Bang cosmology has introduced the probability of the finitude of the observable universe and contemporary universal inflationary theory has shown the strong probability of an initial singularity, implying a causative power transcending universal space and time. When these and other discoveries are allowed to complement traditional proofs for the existence of God, they provide a remarkable rational foundation for the existence of a unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple, super-intelligent, continuous Creator of all else that is.