Is the Big Bang myth or reality?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

When one reads mythology, especially creation myths, one finds certain patterns emerge, certain similarities between different cultures. If one treats the Big Bang and evolution of the universe as a myth then one finds it fits in very well with the existing patterns.

Firstly, most mythologies have a world formed from chaos. That is, the world/universe has an origin in chaos rather than being eternal with no beginning and no end.

A creator god then sets to work and puts things into order. In the Big Bang it is not only space, time and matter and energy that are formed, but also the laws of physics. (It is thought that many universes might form but not survive because the laws of physics that they generate are not capable of sustaining a universe.) So, instead of a creator god bringing order, we have the laws of physics doing the job.

The creator god makes the sky, the earth, the seas and then plants, then animals, and, finally, people. The laws of physics ‘create’, or give rise to, things in exactly the same order, culminating in the evolution of people.

According to the Ancient Egyptian myths, at the dawn of time, the creator god, Ra, gave birth to himself – this sounds VERY close to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the ‘dawn of time’ i.e. time is created by the Big Bang; and the god giving birth to himself has that same mysterious nothing appearing out of nothing quality that the Big Bang has.

Some time after the birth of Ra, a ‘foe’ appears in the form of the Chaos Serpent, Apep. Ra, who is the sun, spends every night in combat with Apep. It was believed by some that Apep would eventually defeat Ra, and by others it was believed that Ra would eventually grow old and tired and would forget who he was and that all he had created would come to nothing.

This parallels the conflict between the laws of physics and entropy. Roughly speaking, entropy is ‘disorder’, or chaos. In thermodynamics it represents the idea that disorder is always and inevitably on the increase in the universe. So, while the laws of physics are working to create order entropy is working ‘against’ them and creating disorder.

Just as there are 2 possible outcomes from the fight between Apep and Ra, our universe has 2 possible ends: it might collapse in on itself = return to the chaos of the Big Bang = Apep defeats Ra, or, it might expand and grow colder until it ‘dies’ of cold = Ra grows old and forgets who he is. (Actually, there is a third option in physics: if the universe contains just the right amount of matter then it could reach a balance point and go on forever.)

Egyptian myth also suggests that Ra might give birth to himself again = when the universe collapses the final implosion might give rise to a new Big Bang.

That the story of the universe according to physics is particularly close to the myths of Ancient Egypt is not surprising: the birth of science is credited to the Ancient Greeks, and the Ancient Greeks had a great admiration for the Ancient Egyptians and there was much interaction between the two.

It is interesting to note, too, that the Ancient Egyptians used something like the scientific method in their medical practices: ‘doctors’ were expected to treat every case as a kind of experiment. The patient was prodded and poked and questioned and detailed notes of their condition plus the diagnosis and treatment were made. Thereafter the patient was monitored and notes made concerning their progress, their response to treatment, and any changes in the treatment etc. These careful observations were then used to improve diagnostics and treatments (which included drugs that are still considered to be effective.).

Could these close parallels be mere coincidence? If more than coincidence, then what do they suggest? Could the Ancient Egyptians have had an intuitive knowledge of the universe, or does it imply something not quite authentic about the Big Bang theory?

2

Rational Metaphysics contends that the actual laws of physics can never change or be changed. They are eternal. And as such there could never have been a state of nothingness nor can there ever be. Nor can any “new laws of physics” ever have been nor could ever be.

That doesn’t mean that there was no Big Bang, but rather that any such Big Bang would have merely been something akin to extremely large black holes colliding such as to explode. But at no time, would there have ever been the lack of time or energy.

Ra is a specific god with specific features. What Ra creates is from relative chaos.

Entropy is a state that results due to the actual laws of physics, as well as anentropy.
The shifting between entropic states and anentroipic states is eternal, “the eternal struggle”, although it really isn’t a struggle, just a progression.

That would be a new “age of enlightenment” (aka “light”). It has very little to do with the actual laws of physics.

Not coincidence. It is called “sentience” and understanding the logic involved in cause-effect relationships, regardless of who or what is considered the cause.

3

Thank you for your interesting comment.

4

The Big Bang theory brings science to its limits. It is an “event” which has happened in a place and time where we have no access today. And most importantly, it is one of these rare events that cannot be replicated in a lab. We can only think of this event. Myth and reality actually blend in this case. People thought Troy was a myth, until they discovered its ruins. The same way, the beginning of the universe via a big bang could exist as a myth in various cultures, but now we have some evidence to back it up. The unfortunate thing is that we will only get this far. A percentage of FAITH will always be required to believe or to disbelieve in the Big Bang… :sunglasses:

5

This is true, I agree. The question then is, is there a means to discovering truth, other than science, and one which requires less faith? I.e. is there some route to discovering the truth about the nature of existence?

6

In this thinking the “big bang” is neither myth nor reality, it is a theory.

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

myth
[mith]
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The question seems to beg for nonsense.

7

This is slippery scientists. They always draw back and say “it’s only a theory”. But on the basis of “just a theory” they have us all chasing our tails trying to stop using too much energy because there is a “theory” that the climate is going to change. And that “theory” is built on X numbers of other theories concerning meteorology which is built on X other theories concerning thermodynamics which is built on X other theories from Newtonian physics which is built on several tenets of faith…at what point do you actually stand your ground and tell us that we are going to all this hard work and deprivation to save the environment for something more real and substantial than “just a theory”!!!

8

That would be slippery, but actually a theory has a great deal of evidence supporting it. In everyday speech we use theory and hypothesis interchangeably, but in science they are quite different.

Hypotheses are not yet supported by enough evidence to be considered theories. Theories have a mass of evidence supporting them.

It would be very odd for a scientist to say ‘it’s just a theory’. They might try to distinguish a theory from somethign that is considered a final and certain truth, but just would be very poor wording, even in that context.

9

A hypothesis is a “hypo-thesis”, meaning that it is the thesis underlying an experiment.
A theory is an imagined guess at an underlying ontology of reality.
Evidence is not required for either, but for it to be a “theory in science”, one of the ordained in scientists must publish his guess.

10

“Chasing our tails”? LOL (dragons do have tails.)

“Stop us from using too much energy”? I believe it is not the use of the energy itself that is the issue but how it is generated that is causing the issues.

The theory of climate change is built on and correlates with other theories. I think that’s the part of the definition of theory that speaks of “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct.” As such, I think they have provided something a bit more substantial. Certainly one may argue with the conclusion, but then you’d have to prove one of the correlatives as an error and incorrect.

Or you can thump your chest and make claims that are based on myth. (referring to the above definition)

11

hy·poth·e·sis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [-seez]
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.

“hypo” greek, under or below, latin, sub. less-than-thesis.

Or perhaps it is the getting the theory published that is the ordaining property. That is to say unless your theory is published you haven’t been “ordained” as a scientist . You may practice the methods, but you’re a novice until published.

Generally speaking in education a masters degree involves the writing of a thesis. If you submit what is merely a hypothesis, you will likely not get the degree.

12

Oh and Dragon, I happen to be an admirer of Joseph Campbell, and I am not unaware of the role myths played in his studies.

13

I don’t think most scientists would refer to a single published paper’s hypothesis, presumably well supported by the evidence in that scientist’s research, as a theory. They would use the word to refer to a hypothesis, or a set of interlocking hypotheses, that are supported by what they consider to be a very significant amount of evidence and has been used in prediction.

Now this does not mean their estimates of what is significant or enough are correct or that better hypotheses are not marginalized or that other kinds of bias are present, but to say one scientists guess would be considered a theory by most scientists doesn’t fit my experience at all. And I am pretty critical of the paradigmantic and other biases present in the culture of scientists.

Theories do include ontology and/or models, that I agree with.

And it is this ontological facet I always think of when people contrast science with metaphysics, as if science wasn’t always positing metaphysics. I mean, even if the scientists are right about what the metaphysics should be considered to be, it is still metaphysics.

14

Huh??

A hypothesis is based on a theory.
A hypothesis is a supposition of what an experiment will produce based on theory(s) (prior suppositions concerning an ontology).

I couldn’t discern to what you were referring.

15

They certainly can be, but need not be. I could be a stab in the dark. It could be an attempt to see if a previous experment, with unexpected results, was not simply a fluke, with no idea at all what model or ontology this would imply. It could be a probe based on an observation in nature, with no theory backing - unless causation or the like is being considered a theory. Most of the time they are coming out of some theory or other, especially in mainstream science. Hey everybody, let’s look at things like this for a few decades.

But really I didn’t mean to make any claim for or against what you say here about hypotheses and their relation to theories.

Well, I was reminded of a tangential issue, there at the end. Often it is claimed that, for example, current science has no metaphysics. Which is sort of like saying current science has no models.

16

EXACTLY!!!

:handgestures-thumbupleft:

But don’t expect scientists to understand that. :confused:

17

I would guess Rupert Sheldrake does. Just gossiping, not attempting to refute.