The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[Dragonfly]

If Peikoff and Harriman reject the Big Bang as a scientific theory, what is their theory then? Do they still believe in a 'steady state' universe?

They believe in the steady benevolent universe.

[merjet]

If you would please provide links to questions you claim to have asked me "many times" and which I didn't answer.

I'll ask you again: Do you agree with Rand's claim "that a concept has to involve two or more similar concretes"?

If yes, what are the two or more concretes of e. g. the concept "pride" (the Objectivist virtue)?

Offer me enough $$ to make it worth my time.

[Brant Gaede]

If Peikoff and Harriman reject the Big Bang as a scientific theory, what is their theory then? Do they still believe in a 'steady state' universe?

They believe in the steady benevolent universe.

Sounds like Rand and her sense of life x the "steady"--she didn't say anything about that, I think.

--Brant

Edited July 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

> DF, you still haven't answered my question:

ARE the snippets you post from P and H. ***the only thing mentioned about it*** by either man?

An ad hominem but no actual criticism?

[BaalChatzaf]

So even if I've not read his new book, I'm sure that it is not much better than what he's uttered before. I'd like to dissect the book if anyone sends me a free copy, but I'm certainly not going to waste my money on it.

Double down on that. I am as likely to read Harriman's book as I am to read Lewis Little's book on TEW.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

> DF, you still haven't answered my question:

ARE the snippets you post from P and H. ***the only thing mentioned about it*** by either man?

An ad hominem but no actual criticism?

I have not transcribed the complete DIM lecture, only some of the most egregious examples (see this post), so I can't tell you if they mentioned other things about them, but as far as I remember that was the gist of it. After all they were categorizing ex cathedra several scientists according to Peikoff's DIM scheme.

[Robert Campbell]

Apropos of the Big Bang, Phil asks what David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff have to say about the notion.

But is that the only thing mentioned about it by either man?

An ad hominem but no actual criticism?

I can't attest to Leonard Peikoff's comments in lecture, but Dragonfly has that base covered.

In The Logical Leap, David Harriman gives the Big Bang theory two pages (251-253). In his second paragraph, he pronounces as follows:

The big bang is the latest in a long history of creation myths, and rational standards of evidence are never applied to such myths. (p. 251)

He concludes his discussion with

As befits a creation myth, the big bang is treated as religious doctrine and cosmologists play the role of theologians protecting the faith. (p. 253)

Oh, and here is what The Logical Leap has to say, in its entirety, about René Descartes' contributions to mathematics:

Even after Galileo, Descartes made relatively little use of mathematics in his physics (despite the fact that he was an excellent mathematician). (p. 237)

Mighty generous of him...

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> In The Logical Leap, David Harriman gives the Big Bang theory two pages (251-253)..."The big bang is the latest in a long history of creation myths, and rational standards of evidence are never applied to such myths." (p. 251) He concludes his discussion with "As befits a creation myth, the big band is treated as religious doctrine and cosmologists play the role of theologians protecting the faith." (p. 253)

Actually, Robert you are not being fair to him. And you left out all the specific points he made.

The answer to my question whether Harriman offers an ad hominem but no actual criticism of the Big Bang is that he does indeed offer scientific objections. Whether not one would agree with him, he argues the following in three (not two) pages:

On page 251:

-- "Reason cannot approve the idea of creation--in this case, the claim that fourteen billion years ago the entire universe inexplicably popped out of a point with infinite mass density"

-- He claims that some of the evidence has been refuted] Lemaitre's argument that the BB was the only possible source for cosmic rays; Eddington's argument that entropy proves the universe must have been at an initial point of simplicity at the moment of creation; Gamow's argument heavy elements could only have been synthesized in a BB

-- He discusses three additional observations which have claimied to prove the BB: the redshift; the relative abundance of light elements; microwave background radiation.

On page 252:

-- He argues that the proponents have had to invent new unobserved and highly speculative phenomena -- dark energy, dark matter, one time only quantum fluctuations, and superexpansionary 'inflation' -- and postulate exactly degree of repulsive and attractive properties they would need to have in order to save the theory. Otherwise:

-- a/ The mass density of the universe is far too low for an explosion (the BB)

-- b/ The distribution of the microwave background radiation is far too uniform for an explosion

-- c/ The distribution of galaxies is far to non-uniform for an explosion

-- He cites the odd fact about BB theory that it has not led to accurate quantitative predictions. None of the ones made have been validated by observation.

On page 253:

--He criticizes the epistemology of the BB advocates:

--a/ After each new observation, supporters retrospecively adjust the theory's parameters, never questioning the theory.

--b/ An anti-empiricist epistemology: Instead of approaching the issue by asking "What is the nature of the universe?", they ask instead "What must the universe be like in order to conform to the big bang theory?"

--It is too early for such a theory of the universe:

--a/ "The data consists primarily of light from very distant sources, but physicists do not yet have an adequate understanding of light 'wavicles' or of the fields through which they travel."

--b/ Some of the aspects of general relativity and quantum field theory contradict each other

--c/ string theory claims to reduce this complexity....

There's a bit more, but this is sufficient to indicate that you (and Dragonfly?) have been unjust in portraying Harriman as some rube who simply dismissed a major scientific theory by saying "Oh, well, what do you expect from a Catholic."

[Brant Gaede]

There's a bit more, but this is sufficient to indicate that you (and Dragonfly?) have been unjust in portraying Harriman as some rube who simply dismissed a major scientific theory by saying "Oh, well, what do you expect from a Catholic."

Dragonfly is a physicist. The BB is a theory within the context of physics. Scientific methodology presents a way of finding out if theories are defective and dealing with them. Did Harriman do that or just run his opinion(s) off?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Harriman] concludes his discussion with

As befits a creation myth, the big band is treated as religious doctrine and cosmologists play the role of theologians protecting the faith. (p. 253)

Actually, Harriman said "big bang." However, big BAND-AID is an appropriate description of what I think is the probable epistemic status of the theory. The adherents keep patching it up, and problems keep developing.

From the list Phil provided in post #258, I must admit that it sounds as if Harriman has a good set of reasons (along maybe with some bad ones) for doubting the theory.

However, Phil, please note that the "Big Bang" does NOT mean an "explosion." The name, if I remember right, was a pejorative, coined by Hoyle, and it stuck despite the inaccurate connotation. What the theory proposes happened was an initial, very rapid *expansion* -- see the posts on Ted Keer's review thread, post #64 and previous, about space expanding.

Ellen

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

On page 252:

-- He argues that the proponents have had to invent new unobserved and highly speculative phenomena -- dark energy, dark matter, one time only quantum fluctuations, and superexpansionary 'inflation' -- and postulate exactly degree of repulsive and attractive properties they would need to have in order to save the theory. Otherwise:

-- a/ The mass density of the universe is far too low for an explosion (the BB)

-- b/ The distribution of the microwave background radiation is far too uniform for an explosion

-- c/ The distribution of galaxies is far to non-uniform for an explosion

-- He cites the odd fact about BB theory that it has not led to accurate quantitative predictions. None of the ones made have been validated by observation.

He got b dead wrong. The variations actually observed in the CMB are just what the theory predicts.

And the "big bang" was NOT an explosion. It was an expansion.

The modified "big bang" theory which allows for an initial superluminal expansion is very well supported by observation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I didn't have the time last night to net out all of Harriman's arguments concerning the big bang.

I will have to do further research, in any event, to be able to respond to them. Big bang theory isn't exactly in my area of expertise. Dragonfly and Bob K have forgotten more about it than I will ever learn.

I am suspicious, however, of his claim that the big bang theory has developed through nothing more than a series of ad hoc dodges and face-saving protective belting.

The fact remains that he begins and ends his subsection on the big bang by asserting that the theory is religious and not scientific.

I didn't count the material farther down p. 253 as an indictment of the big bang because it is a generalized rant against cosmology, ultimately derived from Rand's notes for her unfinished treatise on Objectivism, that quickly transitions into a blast at superstring theory.

Robert Campbell

PS. Some sections of Harriman's book are, IMHO, far worse than his treatment of the Big Bang. Given your exacting standards, I shall have to quote them entire in my posts, or you will accuse me misrepresenting Mr. Harriman.

OK. Quoting those passages in their entirety will do Harriman no favors.

Meanwhile, I note that you are no longer defending Harriman's treatment of Descartes.

[Xray]

If you would please provide links to questions you claim to have asked me "many times" and which I didn't answer.

I'll ask you again: Do you agree with Rand's claim "that a concept has to involve two or more similar concretes"?

If yes, what are the two or more concretes of e. g. the concept "pride" (the Objectivist virtue)?

Offer me enough $$ to make it worth my time.

Why do you cop out, MJ?

If Peikoff and Harriman reject the Big Bang as a scientific theory, what is their theory then? Do they still believe in a 'steady state' universe?

They believe in the steady benevolent universe.

Good one!

Harriman said:

I believe that theory came more from the metaphysics of Augustine than that it did from observational evidence.

Harriman apparently has never heard of the observed expansion of the universe, which lead by backwards extrapolation to the notion of a big bang. No doubt most astronomers couldn’t care less about the metaphysics of Augustine. Who is in fact here defending religious dogma?

In The Logical Leap, David Harriman gives the Big Bang theory two pages (251-253). In his second paragraph, he pronounces as follows:

The big bang is the latest in a long history of creation myths, and rational standards of evidence are never applied to such myths. (p. 251)

He concludes his discussion with

As befits a creation myth, the big bang is treated as religious doctrine and cosmologists play the role of theologians protecting the faith. (p. 253)

Harriman's level of "reasoning" reminds me of the Randian heroine Dagny Taggart saying that she "never believed that story" re the 'future' of the universe ("everything growing cold") ...

I didn't count the material farther down p. 253 as an indictment of the big bang because it is a generalized rant against cosmology, ultimately derived from Rand's notes for her unfinished treatise on Objectivism

Looks like Harriman is the typical case of a believer in an ideology/religion rejecting data contradicting his belief. I suppose those who believed the earth was the center of the universe had the same mindset ...

Harriman is a good example to illustrate that the idea of "believer" is not limited to belief in transcendence. Many ideologies have religious characteristics.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> I note that you are no longer defending Harriman's treatment of Descartes.

Robert, I never did. I haven't read his discussion of Descartes.

Have only read parts of the book and can't either defend or criticize the whole thing or H's approach to either the history of science or induction yet.

Nor can I tell if his view that BB rests on shaky foundations is true yet, either.

I can only make the -- very unscientific and non-probative -- statement that when I first heard in physics class the theory that the whole universe just suddenly exploded or expanded rapidly for some strange reason not given to me at the time -- that that theory sounded like the stupidest thing I ever heard. At least until I heard about string theory :-)

But I was not prepared to evaluate the alleged evidence for or against BB.

And, of course, H's point that you still have to discuss what happened first is valid: It can't just be like creation with nothing preceding.

It's a logical contradiction to say the universe - everything that exists - just began at a certain point in time.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

I am suspicious, however, of his claim that the big bang theory has developed through nothing more than a series of ad hoc dodges and face-saving protective belting.

And you should be. Lemaittre inferred from Hubble's observations that the Cosmos expanded from a very small object. It was reasonable and straight forward. If the Cosmos is expanding now, then it must have been much smaller in previous times. That is how the Big Bang (which is NOT an explosion) was arrived at. It was arrived at based on observations made by Hubble. The light from far away galaxies is red shifted and the farther away the galaxy, the more red shifted the light. Since the Cosmos is growing larger as time passes, must have been smaller in times past.

That alternative hypothesis advanced by Fred Hoyle was the matter was constantly being created as the cosmos expanded giving the appearance of uniformity. Now where does all this constantly newly created matter come from? The Hoyle steady state hypothesis is at least as "mysterious" as the origin from a small object hypothesis. In addition to which the Hoyle hypothesis could not account for the constant microwave radiation from all directions in space, nor could it account for the proportion of hydrogen and helium found in space. Hoyle did get somethings very right. He accounted for the creation of the heavy elements by the gravitational collapse of very massive stars. That part of Hoyle's thinking was right on the mark.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 23, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

If Hoyle did that--identifying the creation of heavy elements--he was a genius.

--Brant

the wonder of it all

Edited July 23, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

From Brant's post on the "Logical Leap" thread:

I don't really know much about the universe and existence and neither does anybody else. It awes me. Existence is God.

--Brant

Brant,

Can your "Existence is God" be interpreted as the coming out of a closet theist? ;)

But kidding aside, I find it hard to believe that any human having the mental capacity to reflect on existence has not asked herself/himself at some point if there might be some kind of intelligence at the origin of all this ... I'm reluctant to call it "being" because it suggests an entity.

Someone told me (I did not check it up, please others correct me in case I render it wrongly) that Einstein said the universe reminds him of an expanded thought ("augsebreiteter Gedanke").

On the other hand, I have conversed with quite a few people who said the thought of a god never entered their mind. One of these persons is Ba'al Chatzaf, who, coupled with his immense knowledge in the mathematical field, possesses a radicality regarding this issue I sometimes wish I had.

That alternative hypothesis advanced by Fred Hoyle was the matter was constantly being created as the cosmos expanded giving the appearance of uniformity. Now where does all this constantly newly created matter come from? The Hoyle steady state hypothesis is at least as "mysterious" as the origin from a small object hypothesis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is indeed as mysterious because it can't explain why matter "is" at all.

A while ago on another thread, you spoke of the only "miracle" being that something exists at all.

Has this never led you to at least speculate about a god, Ba'al? Or is your position that you decline to speculate on issues of which you know you won't ever get an answer to your questions?

I'm not talking about a theist position which claims: "There is a god". Such position makes the epistemological mistake of presenting belief as fact. An atheist who claims "There is no god" would make the same mistake.

Isn't the only scientifically acceptable position the agnostic one? We can't know if there exists a god or not. This position clearly separates belief and speculation from fact.

But despite my being a scientific agnostic and when it comes to personal belief, and despite my current position being that I lean toward the non-believer side of the fence, I always, when looking at the star-spangled sky, am grasped by a feeling of awe regarding the incredible dimensions and the mystery of matter existing at all.

Why did matter squeezed to a tiny point of density unimaginable to conceive for the human brain, suddenly expand in the BB?

From a website:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

The article speaks of the mathematical concept of infinite density boggling the mind.

TIA to posters who can elaborate more on this point.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Isn't the only scientifically acceptable position the agnostic one? We can't know if there exists a god or not. This position clearly separates belief and speculation from fact.

This is equivocating knowledge with ignorance. We can know a great many things and we can know we don't know many things as well--as many as we can imagine, but the not known has no weight or value except as a knowledge border. To know something is hard and responsible work requiring intelligence, courage and honesty--rationality. Not to know something--the existence of a god--requires no work whatsoever and it's obscene to equate the two. Like the universe knowledge expands--against nothing. Like the empty, non-existent true space, ignorance really doesn't exist except as a knowledge mistake or irrational conceit and indulgence.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

On the other hand, I have conversed with quite a few people who said the thought of a god never entered their mind. One of these persons is Ba'al Chatzaf, who, coupled with his immense knowledge in the mathematical field, possesses a radicality regarding this issue I sometimes wish I had.

I'm certainly equally radical...

I'm not talking about a theist position which claims: "There is a god". Such position makes the epistemological mistake of presenting belief as fact. An atheist who claims "There is no god" would make the same mistake.

Isn't the only scientifically acceptable position the agnostic one? We can't know if there exists a god or not. This position clearly separates belief and speculation from fact.

Are you also agnostic with regard to the existence of Zeus and Thor? Or the tooth fairy?

[Xray]

Isn't the only scientifically acceptable position the agnostic one? We can't know if there exists a god or not. This position clearly separates belief and speculation from fact.

This is equivocating knowledge with ignorance.

No. It clearly states absence of knowledge in a field where knowledge is not possible.

BG: We can know a great many things and we can know we don't know many things as well

For example, we can't know why matter exists at all.

--as many as we can imagine, but the not known has no weight or value except as a knowledge border.

The not-known can have a lot of weight in that it can drive us to find out more, to reach beyond the border and acquire more knowledge. If humans had accepted knowledge borders and not tried to go beyond, we would still sit on trees.

As for the never-knowing, it can have quite a psychological impact because the feeling of never knowing can weigh heavily on a person's mind.

To know something is hard and responsible work requiring intelligence, courage and honesty--rationality.

I was not talking about knowing something, but about claiming to know:

Claiming to know that a god exists versus claiming to know that a god does not exist.

Not to know something--the existence of a god--requires no work whatsoever and it's obscene to equate the two.

It can take lot of hard mental work to question and finally discard the myths of a religion one has been born into and then to arrive at a stage of agnosticism which challenges the religion in dismantling its claim of knowledge of a god.

Many concepts can be rejected as false because they contradict facts or scientific findings (like the examples provided by DF in the quote below).

On the other hand, I have conversed with quite a few people who said the thought of a god never entered their mind. One of these persons is Ba'al Chatzaf, who, coupled with his immense knowledge in the mathematical field, possesses a radicality regarding this issue I sometimes wish I had.

I'm certainly equally radical...

In that context, it would interest me if you were born into and brought up in a religion.

Are you also agnostic with regard to the existence of Zeus and Thor? Or the tooth fairy?

Of course not. The agnostic position does take into account established facts.

The tooth fairy story is a plain lie told to children: the caregivers state something as fact while knowing their statement to be false.

Zeus and Thor as myths haven't stood up to scientific scrutiny either.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

In that context, it would interest me if you were born into and brought up in a religion.

No. I remember that when I was a toddler, my mother told me a bit about our good Lord in heaven (I also remember that I tended to confuse him with a pilot) and I've been baptized ("you never know"), but that's all, no prayers, no church and all that jazz. Today I think my parents were at most some kind of deists. When I was about 12 years old, I'd left all that behind me.

Are you also agnostic with regard to the existence of Zeus and Thor? Or the tooth fairy?

Of course not. The agnostic position does take into account established facts.

The tooth fairy story is a plain lie told to children: the caregivers state something as fact while knowing their statement to be false.

Zeus and Thor as myths haven't stood up to scientific scrutiny either.

Neither has the God myth. The only difference with Zeus and Thor is that the latter no longer have many followers, but the number of believers in some supernatural power isn't a scientific argument either...

[Ellen Stuttle]

The modified "big bang" theory which allows for an initial superluminal expansion is very well supported by observation.

Does an initial superluminal expansion contradict special relativity? Or is the idea that special relativity doesn't kick in until after the first few nanoseconds, or something on that order? Or?

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

The modified "big bang" theory which allows for an initial superluminal expansion is very well supported by observation.

Does an initial superluminal expansion contradict special relativity? Or is the idea that special relativity doesn't kick in until after the first few nanoseconds, or something on that order? Or?

Ellen

None of our physical theories work at the instant the expansion started and for a few hundred millionths thereafter. But once the symmetries were broken and the forces separated in to the four forces or interactions we know, the speed of light appears to be constant to within the precision of measurement we can do. There are plenty of areas where physics fails completely. For instance at the singularity at the heart of a Black Hole. The theory of general relativity does not predict dark matter or dark energy. These items are right now not well integrated with our working theories.

Physics is not complete and it is far from perfect. For instance there is at present no way of getting gravitation together with the other three known forces or interactions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Isn't the only scientifically acceptable position the agnostic one? We can't know if there exists a god or not. This position clearly separates belief and speculation from fact.

This is equivocating knowledge with ignorance.

No. It clearly states absence of knowledge in a field where knowledge is not possible.

BG: We can know a great many things and we can know we don't know many things as well

For example, we can't know why matter exists at all.

--as many as we can imagine, but the not known has no weight or value except as a knowledge border.

The not-known can have a lot of weight in that it can drive us to find out more, to reach beyond the border and acquire more knowledge. If humans had accepted knowledge borders and not tried to go beyond, we would still sit on trees.

As for the never-knowing, it can have quite a psychological impact because the feeling of never knowing can weigh heavily on a person's mind.

To know something is hard and responsible work requiring intelligence, courage and honesty--rationality.

I was not talking about knowing something, but about claiming to know:

Claiming to know that a god exists versus claiming to know that a god does not exist.

Not to know something--the existence of a god--requires no work whatsoever and it's obscene to equate the two.

It can take lot of hard mental work to question and finally discard the myths of a religion one has been born into and then to arrive at a stage of agnosticism which challenges the religion in dismantling its claim of knowledge of a god.

Many concepts can be rejected as false because they contradict facts or scientific findings (like the examples provided by DF in the quote below).

On the other hand, I have conversed with quite a few people who said the thought of a god never entered their mind. One of these persons is Ba'al Chatzaf, who, coupled with his immense knowledge in the mathematical field, possesses a radicality regarding this issue I sometimes wish I had.

I'm certainly equally radical...

In that context, it would interest me if you were born into and brought up in a religion.

Are you also agnostic with regard to the existence of Zeus and Thor? Or the tooth fairy?

Of course not. The agnostic position does take into account established facts.

The tooth fairy story is a plain lie told to children: the caregivers state something as fact while knowing their statement to be false.

Zeus and Thor as myths haven't stood up to scientific scrutiny either.

DF is a real physicist. I am just a reasonably well informed "fan" of the field. I have never played. I was trained as a mathematician and for many years did applied mathematics for a living.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

The modified "big bang" theory which allows for an initial superluminal expansion is very well supported by observation.

Does an initial superluminal expansion contradict special relativity? Or is the idea that special relativity doesn't kick in until after the first few nanoseconds, or something on that order? Or?

Ellen

None of our physical theories work at the instant the expansion started and for a few hundred millionths thereafter. But once the symmetries were broken and the forces separated in to the four forces or interactions we know, the speed of light appears to be constant to within the precision of measurement we can do.

Don't forget that special relativity is only valid for flat space-time. In general relativity it is possible that different regions of curved space-time can move in opposite directions with relative speeds greater than the speed of light.

There are plenty of areas where physics fails completely. For instance at the singularity at the heart of a Black Hole.

The "classical" theory of general relativity does indeed predict a singularity, but that doesn't take into account quantummechanical effects which will become important at very small scales. Although we still don't have a theory that successfully combines GR with QM, it's likely that there is in fact no singularity at the center of a black hole.

PS. I'm moving this week to a new place, so I won't have much time for reactions the coming days.