I shall simply have to plead ignorance on this one, but I was surprised nevertheless that I hadn't seen a competing explanation of the universe quite like this before. "How can it be that I've not heard a peep about something so ostensibly groundbreaking?" I wondered. Well, I haven't yet busied myself with reading any sort of refutation of this theory, and it's even harder yet to find follow up on the massive potential of such a description of the universe as this. As it stands, however, I can't help but predict that it was unable catch a lot of traction with cosmologists, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is/was familiar with this and can provide further information?
As an aside, what do we think about this idea, metaphorical plot holes and all? Clearly it doesn't address some of the protracted and lingering complexities that the BBT does, and yet it explains other core issues that the BBT does not. My interest has been piqued, but as much as I'd love to see big bang cosmology fall to the superfluous wayside - thus silencing men like William Lane Craig momentarily - I don't think I'll get too excited just yet.
I was a little disappointed that you were not talking about another sitcom like The Big Bang Theory, but what you are talking about is interesting anyway.
I'll put up my hand that that was my first thought too.
I should be ashamed.
Interesting article anyway.
Hahaha sorry to disappoint, gentleman - I'm a fan of the show as well, and as much as I'd like to think another massively popular mainstream show about a group of hipster physicists could come around, it seems unlikely...
Other thoughts on this from the community?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but Shu makes sense. Is it possible that he is correct and a little bit of both theories could go together to explain everything? A little revision and the idea might work. Where is Albert when you need him? Oh, sorry. He is dead.
Those were exactly my thoughts, Dennis. I'm no physicist, but I struggle to understand why both wouldn't be permitted in some sort of unifying theory.
It's always good to challenge entrenched presumptions as just that, and not concrete fact. That's the most important aspect of science -- that when done well, cherished 'truths' can be overthrown. It's also important that their overthrow is resisted, else we continually flail around and can claim to know nothing beyond momentary sensation. When the maths work, the new idea is bolstered and the old re-thought. This is science working exactly as it should.
Agreed. Last year, my dad had been challenged that religion is constantly changing it's tune as per moral and historical issues. His response: yes, but those scientists you worship do as well. That may be the case, but if that's true, it's science which dictates the necessary change in religion, and never the other way around.
It strikes me strange that your dad says you "are worshiping scientists." Most religionists think this way. Dylan had a song saying we all have to serve somebody, and that might fit better, but I disagree with the saying. You do NOT have to serve somebody. The church world claims that "everybody worships something" and they add your money, wife, car, TV addiction, etc. into that tired old mix. The idea is to prove and show to you that you should worship and serve God, and not other things in this world. Again, I disagree. Everybody does NOT serve somebody (or some thing) and everybody does not worship something!
I've always found that odd as well, but the idea that everything worships something seems to help them reinforce the idea that they, at the very least, aren't more illogical than the rest of us, just equally...
Seems to me that religion is about authority and that religionists think we accept theories because they come from the "gods" of science simply because they themselves accept the authority of the Bible--as interpreted by the latest megapreacher. With the spread of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity and its insistence on Biblical literalism, we are being dragged backward toward 17th century theocracy. We have Congress men and women who think that climate change is a hoax because it contradicts (in their fuzzy brains, anyway), the Bible. One said last week that Noah's flood was an example of climate change that showed that humankind cannot control or influence global climate. Apparently he has forgotten that Noah's flood reduced world population to just eight individuals. I guess that makes climate change perfectly all right.
A few different topics there to unpack Craig, but I think I agree with you on all of them. Specific to global warming, I find it almost hard to believe that anyone could take the story of Noah's ark seriously, but then again I suppose so little knowledge of ecology easily explains how they could be so naive as to think that we have absolutely no impact on the environment.
With regard to their authoritarianism, I think that's a worthwhile point to make. Many theists defer almost all of their decision making power to the "will of God", so it's sensible to think that they simply assume we perform the same principle, without thinking things through, except with the word of scientists. Indeed, they would certainly be correct about some of us...