My thought is that verbal/written language is simply not able to deal with such situations. It is something that has developed over many thousands of years in a temporal context. The people who work in this area use advanced mathematics to create models to try understand what is going on, and on occasion try put this into words that will allow the rest of us to have at least a glimmer of understanding. But it will always be far from perfect.
That Sean Carroll podcast that @chuckdarwin linked above, and the accompanying book, looks very promising as something that might help some of us better understand this topic.
During the above session, was Grok told to only use the information fed to it? Was it told to only make two conclusions where one conclusion had to be that there was a Creator? Grok is a logic machine, but like any AI it can be steered into making something completely wrong and it wonât even know it. Ever ask an AI to draw a labelled diagram of cell? Or to give the expected phenotypic ratio of a simple tri-hybrid Mendelian cross? The results are total science fiction.
I ask because the OP got this out of Grok:
So it is correct enough that there is no empirical evidence for a multiverse. I am ok with that, but I will get back to the word âempiricalâ in a moment.
It is wrong to conclude that a quantum field or space before the big bang didnât exist. There is no empirical evidence that these existed, and there is no empirical evidence that they didnât We just donât know, so it is a leap to conclude that space and time and quantum fluctuations did not exist before our big bang, and it is a compounded error to make further conclusions based on that. Grok later uses this error (or is told to use this error) to make the ginormous leap that must be a Creator.
Btw, several comments above imply that space and time by definition cannot exist before our big bang, some 13.8 billion years ago. There are popularized articles and science documentaries that say that, but Iâve never seen why this is claimed with so much confidence.
And here we are, a False Dichotomy fallacy. Why do we have to conclude that either the universe is eternal OR there is a Creator? Why is there even a conclusion about a Creator when there is no empirical evidence for one? Just above, Grok make the error to outright reject a possibility simply because it lacked empirical evidence, but here, it strangely does not do the same regarding a Creator.
So far, to be Fair and Balanced, I have it that either there could be quantum fluctuations in eternal space-time that spits out universes in a multiverse (this is the Eternal Inflation Model, btw), OR there are quantum fluctuations in space-time that made ONLY our universe, OR there is all that string theory stuff about the big bang, OR the universe is cyclic, OR there is a Creator (a being with Intentions, I suppose), OR there is an unconscious creator with no awareness or intentions but diddles with causality and the result is either just our universe or a multiverse ⌠,OR there are a plethora of other possibilities.
It makes sense to talk about âbeforeâ the beginning of time if time is not only relativistic but also multidimensional. For example, in multiverse theory time is multidimensional and talking about
'before" the big bang is easily understood. Within Theism, time is also multidimensional.
WLC holds to the âA-Theoryâ of time and claims (âtechnicallyâ speaking) that time began with the universe and God is timelessâbut then he explains what sounds an awful like time (at least to his critics) where God could have decided in those timeless-times of no-created-universe that he would create a universe. (Of course, my use of tenses makes my description flawed.) Craig calls this âtimeless willingâ or âatemporal causationâ (because he knows that cause-and-effect would imply a timeline.) WLC gives analogies for this but critics emphasize that analogies are not necessarily logically powerful.
Craig argues for a personal agent with free will (i.e., God) who is capable of being a timeless cause bringing about a temporal effect. I am not necessarily opposed to that but I think a âB Theoryâ of time makes a better fit. On the other hand, Iâm not a philosopher and Iâm well out of my element here.
The bottom line is we are probably both agreeing with WLC on this time-beginning-with-the-universe point (even though I tend to be unpersuaded by his A-Theory of time) but I find his timeless state of Godâs existence a strange contrast to what sometimes sounds like a time-bound deity in some of Craigâs writings and lectures. (Was God timeless âbeforeâ the creation of the universe but became âtime boundâ after that creation? Iâm sure Craig would say no but it sure sounds to me like a change-in-God is implied. And how does a timeless God suddenly become not-so-timeless?) Perhaps I simply lack the background to fully understand him. Indeed, that is very likely.
That reply is irrelevant as the BVG theorem only applies to inflation (expansion cant be eternal in the past), not the universe as a whole, or an eternal series of past events or causes.
Itâs not me saying this, here are a selection of videos where various people explain whatâs wrong with apologistâs (typically Craigâs) use of the BVG theorem:
In this video from 17:29 and on:
In this video from 39:46 and on:
In this video from 1:00:13 and on:
In this video from 31:26 and on: (This one is particularly funny because Vilenkin himself makes an appearance to say that the BVG theorem doesnât imply a beginning of time):
Again here from 29:39 and on:
I could probably find 10 more if I bothered re-watching more videos Iâve forgotten about. The two youtube channels Majesty of Reason, and Phil Halper, are really excellent for rebuttals to this apologetics cosmology crap.
To me, it doesnât seem impossible. It is just very hard to, well, grok. I canât identify any logical contradictions in the idea of something existing in the absence of time, and the same thing existing temporally (It is very hard to avoid using tensed terms like "âŚand then existing temporallyâŚ). But to actually conceive what timeless existence would be like is impossible. So, again, I just have to trust the people who can do the math.
The problem for people like WLC or @RonaldCram is that they fail to make any good argument for why the existence of a first moment of time entails the existence of a god.
"If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem [43] which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.
âThe theorem is based on the well-known fact that the momentum of an object traveling on a geodesic through an expanding universe is redshifted, just as the momentum of a photon is redshifted. Suppose, therefore, we consider a timelike or null geodesic extended backwards, into the past. In an expanding universe such a geodesic will be blueshifted. The theorem shows that under some circumstances the blueshift reaches infinite rapidity (i.e., the speed of light) in a finite amount of proper time (or affine parameter) along the trajectory, showing that such a trajectory is (geodesically) incomplete.â
Notice the question: Could the universe be eternal into the past? Guth says according to BGV theorem (footnote [43]), the answer is no.
Vilenkin, Alexander. âThe Beginning of the Universeâ Inference Review.
Vilenkin writes: âThe answer to the question, âDid the universe have a beginning?â is, âIt probably did.â We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.â
Vilenkin goes on to offer his own proposal on how to avoid a Creator God. But I did with this in my discussion with Grok. Vilenkinâs proposal has both philosophic and scientific problems. It isnât testable and so his proposal cannot be considered scientific.
.The authors of BGV theorem have argued in peer reviewed papers that BGV theorem does indeed show the universe likely had a beginning. There are ways to evade the theorem but, as Guth points out, these models must have unreasonable or implausible assumptions such as a reversal of the arrow of time. As everyone knows, the arrow of time gets its direction from entropy. So a reversal of the arrow of time means a reversal of entropy. That would be a miracle.
Itâs certainly a problem, sure. Thereâs many more. Even if time had an ultimate beginning that wouldnât imply there had to be a supernatural entity to do anything.
No itâs the expansion. Itâs literally in the word, to inflate. Which means to expand. Is INFLATION (expansion) eternal into the past? Thatâs what the theorem is about.
Or perhaps theyâre just being imprecise with their use of words in their publications, which is not at all unusual. I know apologists like to pretend every word was scrutinized by fifty linguists when a mighty âpeer reviewedâ paper says something they like because they can spin it to fit their narrative (the more sensational and provocative the better, Iâm sure you have a folder full of SJ Gould quotes too), but honestly most scientists really donât care all that much about the fluff you find in the introduction and the discussions of most papers. They usually spend most of their energy checking the math and the results.
Yes yes, youâre going to spin some story about how this canât possibly be the case since this was the MIGHTY PEER REVIEW and I must be wrong because these PREEMINENT SCHOLARS wouldnât allow such casual conflations as âexpansionâ and âthe universeâ.
But they did. Sorry.
So itâs about whether expansion can be eternal in the past, not about whether past events or the dimension of time can be eternal in the past.
Look, thereâs videos of both Guth and Vilenkin directly saying this much. Are they lying about their own theorem? You seem to be saying yes. Yet multiple other cosmologists and philosophers of science have analyzed the BVG theorem and agree with itâs own authors that, in fact, it only applies to the expansion.
So perhaps you need to just accept that youâre wrong about the BVG theorem and get on with your life?
I retired from the theological world many years ago but unless something radical has happened in scholarship of which I am unaware, this sure sounds like the old-time equivocation fallacyâin this case conflating some speculative theories of some physicists about extra dimensions and multiverses and speculative musings of some theologians trying to solve the question of Godâs relation to time. The fact they both may happen to use the word âdimensionsâ doesnât mean that they are talking about the same thing. At all.
No. âWithin theismâ one cannot necessarily conclude that âtime is also multi-dimensional.â The theism community is farrrrrrrrrrrrrr broader than that.
I think we are seeing the problem with the apologetic mindset. Itâs dedicated to finding âreasonsâ to believe - without understanding. Thereâs no real critical thought applied to the argument - and as we have seen Grokâs sycophantic tendencies make it worthless as a substitute.
It should not matter that Vilenkinâs suggestion is not scientific if the alternative is equally unscientific. Indeed in a valid eliminative argument you cannot arbitrarily exempt the preferred alternative from the criteria used to reject the alternatives - doing so is a clear double standard..
We should not see appeals to confused pages on RationalWiki - which are clearly labelled as in need of improvement - when just looking at RationalWikiâs main page on logical fallacies - or even an understanding of what a logical fallacy is - would quickly set the matter straight.
You are cherry picking, choosing what suits your predetermined conclusion, and rejecting clear statements from the self same authors where they contradict. Moreover, even it our universe had a beginning, it does not in any way follow that it is the only instance and all the material that has existed had a beginning.
There are different flavors of inflation theory. In one version, common among Soviet physicists, the Big Bang was caused by the false vacuum state in inflation theory. Guth has modified peopleâs views on that, but not much.
âInflation is not a theory of the ultimate beginning; rather, itâs a theory of how the universe evolved from a tiny fraction of a second after whatever did cause the beginning.â
â Alan Guth, The Inflationary Universe (1997), p. 271
The point is that inflation theory does not posit a past eternal universe. One can hold that the false vacuum existed in inflation theory prior to the Big Bang and caused the Big Bang or one can hold, as Guth does, that inflation started âa tiny fraction of a secondâ after the Big Bang.
There has been no empirical or mathematical evidence since 1997 to overturn this viewpoint. Guth has shown a dislike for how WLC and other apologists have used inflationary theory and BGV theorem, but he has not been able to publish a paper overturning his view. I remember that Guth and Sean Carroll talked about writing a paper together in 2014 about a past eternal cosmological model. However, they never published that paper. I donât think the math worked out.
There are no viable past eternal cosmological models. If you think there are, name your favorite and I will cite the paper that refutes the model.
Itâs almost like you did not read the âDiscussion with Grokâ linked in the OP. I explained the science to Grok. Hereâs a quote:
âGood. And now we turn to the science. The first line of scientific evidence is from cosmology. According to Einsteinâs General Theory of Relativity, our universe is a four-dimensional (4D) spacetime. That is, the universe is one entity with four aspects: three dimensions of space and one of time. When a massive object like our sun warps the fabric of spacetime, both space and time are warped. There are many observations confirming this theory. If we accept this theory as being true, then we must accept that space and time came into existence at the same moment. This is hard to grasp. Many wonder how time could have a first moment. If the multiverse is true, then time is not only relativistic but also multi-dimensional. Every bubble universe would have its own separate time. Iâm not a big fan of multiverse theories because there is no empiric evidence for it. Multiverse theories were put forward as an attempt to explain how the Big Bang might be the result of a natural process. If the Big Bang were the result of a natural process, then there should be many such Bangs happening. Scientists have looked for evidence of a multiverse but so far none has been found. More importantly, the BGV theorem was published in 2003. This is a mathematical proof that any cosmological model which is expanding on average over its history must have a beginning. Because all multiverse models contain a universe generator of some kind, all multiverse models are expanding. Therefore all multiverse models have an ultimate beginning. There are no viable past eternal cosmological models left. Science has demonstrated that the universe had an ultimate beginning from the initial conditions of âno spacetime.â This means there was no matter, no energy (which is the same as matter), no space and no time. In other words, the Big Bang cannot be the result of a natural process because Nature did not exist. The universe cannot be the result of a quantum fluctuation because a quantum fluctuation requires a quantum field and a quantum field requires space. This situation is a real challenge to naturalism. In 1983 paper, Alexander Vilenkin proposed a new idea which would take Einsteinâs GR into account. He proposed that the universe was the result of a quantum nucleation. This is very like a quantum fluctuation but Vilenkin proposes this could happen in the absence of space. All that is required, according to Vilenkin, is that the laws of physics have some Platonic existence before the universe began to exist. While an interesting proposal, it has both philosophic and scientific problems. Philosophically, how can the universe create itself? Also, how can something happen in time before time exists? Scientifically, this proposal is not testable. As Newton taught us, âHypotheses non fingoâ which is best understood as âI do not embrace untested hypothesesâ. Vilenkinâs proposal is not testable even in principle. We cannot build a lab which has the initial conditions of âno matter, no space and no time.â I conclude that the universe had an ultimate beginning and is not entirely natural. The cause or Creator of the universe must be a personal agent that is immaterial, eternal and atemporal. Any such personal agent deserves the title of God. Do you find any errors in the science as I have presented it? Do you find any errors in the logic?â
If the beginning of the universe cannot be Natural because Nature does not exist, what is the alternative?
No. You did not âexplainâ anything to an AI model, certainly not in the sense of explaining something to another person. What you did was to shape your request to give the answer you desired.
As I already noted above, there is nothing new here. This is an argument philosophers have been making for thousands of years. It hasnât reached any new conclusion, itâs simply repeating back a bit of the data it was trained on.
Try asking the AI if you are presenting a false dilemma.
