Heelwaarskynlik merk jy ook nou al net soos ek, vele van die posstukke
'read' sonder om dit te read. Op 'n tyd was dit interessant om te sien
dat daar een brief op die nuusgroep is, en nou lees ek van 15 slelgs
5.
Wat maak jy op jou rekenaar? Seker is hier vele mense wat nie veel
meer weet as hoe om nuusgroepe oop te maak nie, maar in teenstellling
daarmee is daar ook diegene wat nuusgroepe slegs as afleiding gebruik.
Ek is een van laasgenoemde en iets wat ek een keer op jou rubriek
gelees het, laat my dink dat dit ook vir jou geld. Wat doen jy op
rekenaar? Sekerlik nie Tetris nie:-)))
Ek is oortuig daarvan dat Dave, Torreke ens. net so fundamentele moslems sou
gewees as hulle in 'n moslemland gebore en ge-indoktrineer was. Daarteenoor
sou Suidwester as 'n arabier die moslem geloof bevraagteken het en hy sou
sonder twyfel sterk deur eergenoemde twee aangeval gewees het.
Dit is 'n neiging van sommige mense om godsdienstig te wees. Hulle WEET.
Dit is baie onbehulpsaam, want sodra iemand GLO en dus WEET, hou hy op met
dink, hetsy moslem christen, hindo ens.
Die feit dat die mense geglo het die aarde is plat, was nie dat hulle stupid
was nie, maar omdat hulle gedink het hulle WEET en GEGLO het; en dan het die
Torrekes en die Daves van daardie tyd die bybel gebruik om dit te
substansieer.
CHAPTER 9
THE ARROW OF TIME
In previous chapters we have seen how our views of the nature of time
have changed over the years. Up to the
beginning of this century people believed in an absolute time. That
is, each event could be labeled by a number
called Âtime in a unique way, and all good clocks would agree on the
time interval between two events.
However, the discovery that the speed of light appeared the same to
every observer, no matter how he was
moving, led to the theory of relativity  and in that one had to
abandon the idea that there was a unique
absolute time. Instead, each observer would have his own measure of
time as recorded by a clock that he
carried: clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily
agree. Thus time became a more personal
concept, relative to the observer who measured it.
When one tried to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, one had to
introduce the idea of Âimaginary time.
Imaginary time is indistinguishable from directions in space. If one
can go north, one can turn around and head
south; equally, if one can go forward in imaginary time, one ought to
be able to turn round and go backward.
This means that there can be no important difference between the
forward and backward directions of
imaginary time. On the other hand, when one looks at Âreal time,
there's a very big difference between the
forward and backward directions, as we all know. Where does this
difference between the past and the future
come from? Why do we remember the past but not the future?
The laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the
future. More precisely, as explained earlier,
the laws of science are unchanged under the combination of operations
(or symmetries) known as C, P, and T.
(C means changing particles for antiparticles. P means taking the
mirror image, so left and right are
interchanged. And T means reversing the direction of motion of all
particles: in effect, running the motion
backward.) The laws of science that govern the behavior of matter
under all normal situations are unchanged
under the combination of the two operations C and P on their own. In
other words, life would be just the same
for the inhabitants of another planet who were both mirror images of
us and who were made of antimatter,
rather than matter.
If the laws of science are unchanged by the combination of operations
C and P, and also by the combination C,
P, and T, they must also be unchanged under the operation T alone. Yet
there is a big difference between the
forward and backward directions of real time in ordinary life. Imagine
a cup of water falling off a table and
breaking into pieces on the floor. If you take a film of this, you can
easily tell whether it is being run forward or
backward. If you run it backward you will see the pieces suddenly
gather themselves together off the floor and
jump back to form a whole cup on the table. You can tell that the film
is being run backward because this kind
of behavior is never observed in ordinary life. If it were, crockery
manufacturers would go out of business.
The explanation that is usually given as to why we don't see broken
cups gathering themselves together off the
floor and jumping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the
second law of thermodynamics. This says that
in any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time.
In other words, it is a form of Murphy's
law: things always tend to go wrong! An intact cup on the table is a
state of high order, but a broken cup on the
floor is a disordered state. One can go readily from the cup on the
table in the past to the broken cup on the
floor in the future, but not the other way round.
The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what
is called an arrow of time, something that
distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.
There are at least three different arrows of
time. First, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time, the direction
of time in which disorder or entropy
increases. Then, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the
direction in which we feel time passes, the
direction in which we remember the past but not the future. Finally,
there is the cosmological arrow of time. This
is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather
than contracting.
In this chapter I shall argue that the no boundary condition for the
universe, together with the weak anthropic
principle, can explain why all three arrows point in the same
direction  and moreover, why a well-defined arrow
of time should exist at all. I shall argue that the psychological
arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow,
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (1 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
and that these two arrows necessarily always point in the same
direction. If one assumes the no boundary
condition for the universe, we shall see that there must be
well-defined thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time, but they will not point in the same direction for the
whole history of the universe. However, I
shall argue that it is only when they do point in the same direction
that conditions are suitable for the
development of intelligent beings who can ask the question: why does
disorder increase in the same direction
of time as that in which the universe expands?
I shall discuss first the thermodynamic arrow of time. The second law
of thermodynamics results from the fact
that there are always many more disordered states than there are
ordered ones. For example, consider the
pieces of a jigsaw in a box. There is one, and. only one, arrangement
in which the pieces make a complete
picture. On the other hand, there are a very large number of
arrangements in which the pieces are disordered
and don't make a picture.
Suppose a system starts out in one of the small number of ordered
states. As time goes by, the system will
evolve according to the laws of science and its state will change. At
a later time, it is more probable that the
system will be in a disordered state than in an ordered one because
there are more disordered states. Thus
disorder will tend to increase with time if the system obeys an
initial condition of high order.
Suppose the pieces of the jigsaw start off in a box in the ordered
arrangement in which they form a picture. If
you shake the box, the pieces will take up another arrangement. This
will probably be a disordered
arrangement in which the pieces don't form a proper picture, simply
because there are so many more
disordered arrangements. Some groups of pieces may still form parts of
the picture, but the more you shake
the box, the more likely it is that these groups will get broken up
and the pieces will be in a completely jumbled
state in which they don't form any sort of picture. So the disorder of
the pieces will probably increase with time if
the pieces obey the initial condition that they start off in a
condition of high order.
Suppose, however, that God decided that the universe should finish up
in a state of high order but that it didn't
matter what state it started in. At early times the universe would
probably be in a disordered state. This would
mean that disorder would decrease with time. You would see broken cups
gathering themselves together and
jumping back onto the table. However, any human beings who were
observing the cups would be living in a
universe in which disorder decreased with time. I shall argue that
such beings would have a psychological
arrow of time that was backward. That is, they would remember events
in the future, and not remember events
in their past. When the cup was broken, they would remember it being
on the table, but when it was on the
table, they would not remember it being on the floor.
It is rather difficult to talk about human memory because we don't
know how the brain works in detail. We do,
however, know all about how computer memories work. I shall therefore
discuss the psychological arrow of
time for computers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the arrow
for computers is the same as that for
humans. If it were not, one could make a killing on the stock exchange
by having a computer that would
remember tomorrow's prices! A computer memory is basically a device
containing elements that can exist in
either of two states. A simple example is an abacus. In its simplest
form, this consists of a number of wires; on
each wire there are a number of beads that can be put in one of two
positions. Before an item is recorded in a
computer's memory, the memory is in a disordered state, with equal
probabilities for the two possible states.
(The abacus beads are scattered randomly on the wires of the abacus.)
After the memory interacts with the
system to be remembered, it will definitely be in one state or the
other, according to the state of the system.
(Each abacus bead will be at either the left or the right of the
abacus wire.) So the memory has passed from a
disordered state to an ordered one. However, in order to make sure
that the memory is in the right state, it is
necessary to use a certain amount of energy (to move the bead or to
power the computer, for example). This
energy is dissipated as heat, and increases the amount of disorder in
the universe. One can show that this
increase in disorder is always greater than the increase in the order
of the memory itself. Thus the heat
expelled by the computer's cooling fan means that when a computer
records an item in memory, the total
amount of disorder in the universe still goes up. The direction of
time in which a computer remembers the past
is the same as that in which disorder increases.
Our subjective sense of the direction of time, the psychological arrow
of time, is therefore determined within our
brain by the thermodynamic arrow of time. Just like a computer, we
must remember things in the order in which
entropy increases. This makes the second law of thermodynamics almost
trivial. Disorder increases with time
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (2 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases
You can't have a safer bet than that!
But why should the thermodynamic arrow of time exist at all? Or, in
other words, why should the universe be in
a state of high order at one end of time, the end that we call the
past? Why is it not in a state of complete
disorder at all times? After all, this might seem more probable. And
why is the direction of time in which
disorder increases the same as that in which the universe expands?
In the classical theory of general relativity one cannot predict how
the universe would have begun because all
the known laws of science would have broken down at the big bang
singularity. The universe could have
started out in a very smooth and ordered state. This would have led to
well-defined thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows of time, as we observe. But it could equally well
have started out in a very lumpy and
disordered state. In that case, the universe would already be in a
state of complete disorder, so disorder could
not increase with time. It would either stay constant, in which case
there would be no well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time, or it would decrease, in which case the
thermodynamic arrow of time would point
in the opposite direction to the cosmological arrow. Neither of these
possibilities agrees with what we observe.
However, as we have seen, classical general relativity predicts its
own downfall. When the curvature of
space-time becomes large, quantum gravitational effects will become
important and the classical theory will
cease to be a good description of the universe. One has to use a
quantum theory of gravity to understand how
the universe began.
In a quantum theory of gravity, as we saw in the last chapter, in
order to specify the state of the universe one
would still have to say how the possible histories of the universe
would behave at the boundary of space-time in
the past. One could avoid this difficulty of having to describe what
we do not and cannot know only if the
histories satisfy the no boundary condition: they are finite in extent
but have no boundaries, edges, or
singularities. In that case, the beginning of time would be a regular,
smooth point of space-time and the
universe would have begun its expansion in a very smooth and ordered
state. It could not have been
completely uniform, because that would violate the uncertainty
principle of quantum theory. There had to be
small fluctuations in the density and velocities of particles. The no
boundary condition, however, implied that
these fluctuations were as small as they could be, consistent with the
uncertainty principle.
The universe would have started off with a period of exponential or
Âinflationary expansion in which it would
have increased its size by a very large factor. During this expansion,
the density fluctuations would have
remained small at first, but later would have started to grow. Regions
in which the density was slightly higher
than average would have had their expansion slowed down by the
gravitational attraction of the extra mass.
Eventually, such regions would stop expanding and collapse to form
galaxies, stars, and beings like us. The
universe would have started in a smooth and ordered state, and would
become lumpy and disordered as time
went on. This would explain the existence of the thermodynamic arrow
of time.
But what would happen if and when the universe stopped expanding and
began to contract? Would the
thermodynamic arrow reverse and disorder begin to decrease with time?
This would lead to all sorts of
science-fiction-like possibilities for people who survived from the
expanding to the contracting phase. Would
they see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and
jumping back onto the table? Would they
be able to remember tomorrow's prices and make a fortune on the stock
market? It might seem a bit academic
to worry about what will happen when the universe collapses again, as
it will not start to contract for at least
another ten thousand million years. But there is a quicker way to find
out what will happen: jump into a black
hole. The collapse of a star to form a black hole is rather like the
later stages of the collapse of the whole
universe. So if disorder were to decrease in the contracting phase of
the universe, one might also expect it to
decrease inside a black hole. So perhaps an astronaut who fell into a
black hole would be able to make money
at roulette by remembering where the ball went before he placed his
bet. (Unfortunately, however, he would not
have long to play before he was turned to spaghetti. Nor would he be
able to let us know about the reversal of
the thermodynamic arrow, or even bank his winnings, because he would
be trapped behind the event horizon
of the black hole.)
At first, I believed that disorder would decrease when the universe
recollapsed. This was because I thought that
the universe had to return to a smooth and ordered state when it
became small again. This would mean that
the contracting phase would be like the time reverse of the expanding
phase. People in the contracting phase
would live their lives backward: they would die before they were born
and get younger as the universe
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (3 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
contracted.
This idea is attractive because it would mean a nice symmetry between
the expanding and contracting phases.
However, one cannot adopt it on its own, independent of other ideas
about the universe. The question is: is it
implied by the no boundary condition, or is it inconsistent with that
condition? As I said, I thought at first that the
no boundary condition did indeed imply that disorder would decrease in
the contracting phase. I was misled
partly by the analogy with the surface of the earth. If one took the
beginning of the universe to correspond to
the North Pole, then the end of the universe should be similar to the
beginning, just as the South Pole is similar
to the North. However, the North and South Poles correspond to the
beginning and end of the universe in
imaginary time. The beginning and end in real time can be very
different from each other. I was also misled by
work I had done on a simple model of the universe in which the
collapsing phase looked like the time reverse of
the expanding phase. However, a colleague of mine, Don Page, of Penn
State University, pointed out that the
no boundary condition did not require the contracting phase
necessarily to be the time reverse of the expanding
phase. Further, one of my students, Raymond Laflamme, found that in a
slightly more complicated model, the
collapse of the universe was very different from the expansion. I
realized that I had made a mistake: the no
boundary condition implied that disorder would in fact continue to
increase during the contraction. The
thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would not reverse when
the universe begins to recontract, or
inside black holes.
What should you do when you find you have made a mistake like that?
Some people never admit that they are
wrong and continue to find new, and often mutually inconsistent,
arguments to support their case  as
Eddington did in opposing black hole theory. Others claim to have
never really supported the incorrect view in
the first place or, if they did, it was only to show that it was
inconsistent. It seems to me much better and less
confusing if you admit in print that you were wrong. A good example of
this was Einstein, who called the
cosmological constant, which he introduced when he was trying to make
a static model of the universe, the
biggest mistake of his life.
To return to the arrow of time, there remains the question: why do we
observe that the thermodynamic and
cosmological arrows point in the same direction? Or in other words,
why does disorder increase in the same
direction of time as that in which the universe expands? If one
believes that the universe will expand and then
contract again, as the no boundary proposal seems to imply, this
becomes a question of why we should be in
the expanding phase rather than the contracting phase.
One can answer this on the basis of the weak anthropic principle.
Conditions in the contracting phase would not
be suitable for the existence of intelligent beings who could ask the
question: why is disorder increasing in the
same direction of time as that in which the universe is expanding? The
inflation in the early stages of the
universe, which the no boundary proposal predicts, means that the
universe must be expanding at very close to
the critical rate at which it would just avoid recollapse, and so will
not recollapse for a very long time. By then all
the stars will have burned out and the protons and neutrons in them
will probably have decayed into light
particles and radiation. The universe would be in a state of almost
complete disorder. There would be no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time. Disorder couldn't increase much because
the universe would be in a state of
almost complete disorder already. However, a strong thermodynamic
arrow is necessary for intelligent life to
operate. In order to survive, human beings have to consume food, which
is an ordered form of energy, and
convert it into heat, which is a disordered form of energy. Thus
intelligent life could not exist in the contracting
phase of the universe. This is the explanation of why we observe that
the thermodynamic and cosmological
arrows of time point in the same direction. It is not that the
expansion of the universe causes disorder to
increase. Rather, it is that the no boundary condition causes disorder
to increase and the conditions to be
suitable for intelligent life only in the expanding phase.
To summarize, the laws of science do not distinguish between the
forward and backward directions of time.
However, there are at least three arrows of time that do distinguish
the past from the future. They are the
thermodynamic arrow, the direction of time in which disorder
increases; the psychological arrow, the direction
of time in which we remember the past and not the future; and the
cosmological arrow, the direction of time in
which the universe expands rather than contracts. I have shown that
the psychological arrow is essentially the
same as the thermodynamic arrow, so that the two would always point in
the same direction. The no boundary
proposal for the universe predicts the existence of a well-defined
thermodynamic arrow of time because the
universe must start off in a smooth and ordered state. And the reason
we observe this thermodynamic arrow to
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of
time/h.html (4 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:15:38 AM]
agree with the cosmological arrow is that intelligent beings can exist
only in the expanding phase. The
contracting phase will be unsuitable because it has no strong
thermodynamic arrow of time.
The progress of the human race in understanding the universe has
established a small corner of order in an
increasingly disordered universe. If you remember every word in this
book, your memory will have recorded
about two million pieces of information: the order in your brain will
have increased by about two million units.
However, while you have been reading the book, you will have converted
at least a thousand calories of
ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the
form of heat that you lose to the air around
you by convection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the
universe by about twenty million million
million million units  or about ten million million million times the
increase in order in your brain  and that's if
you remember everything in this book. In the next chapter but one I
will try to increase the order in our neck of
the woods a little further by explaining how people are trying to fit
together the partial theories I have described
to form a complete unified theory that would cover everything in the
universe.
PREVIOUS NEXT
A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 9
o Om vry en/of regverdig, onder andere, Aangename uitkomste, mee te bereik.
o En/of asook, Mark groei daarmee, aan te dui.
o Ek hys die benodige kleur vlag - ek gee oor.
o Om interpreteer te word, om ondersteuning te lewer, en/of
o Verby gesteek te word.
Vir groter Aangename uitkomste (Inisiatiew(e)), die lig te sien.
o Ek stel voor, die kuur vir miv en/of vigs, 'losgelaat te word uit
haar/sy hok', (indien wel bestaan, indien wel).
o En elke familie te 'red' / ondersteun,
om (beter en/of) nuwe uitgawes, aan te gaan,
en/of verkryging van bate(s).
o Bv. Self-help en/of Groep-help materiaal en/of kursus(se).
o Om die vervorming,
van vrede, vriendskap, (gesondheid), welstand,
voorspoed, (sekuriteit), (veiligheid),
((tegnologiese) (teokratiese) moderniteit), ens. ),
(op die persoonlike, familie en/of arms uitgestrekte familie
vlak(ke)),
te verhoog, van, (verby), en/of na hoër vlak(ke).
(ondersteun) Hoop dit help.
(ondersteun) Saam vir 'n (beter en/of) Nuwe (Toekoms en/of) Era.
(ondersteun) Almal vir Een, en/of Een vir Almal.
Christene sê net hulle gaan hemel toe, Moslems sê net hulle gaan hemel
toe, ander gelowe glo nie aan
die hemel of 'n god nie soos budhisme en volgens die christene
gaan hulle almal hel toe al lewe
hulle 'n baie voorbeeldige lewe in baie meer 'n mate as meeste christene.
Die bybel sê jy is met my of jy is teen my d.w.s. ek is klaar verdoem tot die hel al help
ek my medemens waar ek kan en doen ek niemand kwaad aan want
ek is 'n ateïs! As dit so was dat die siel na die dood na 'n hemel sou gaan dan sou dit ook
geld vir alle diere want aan die einde van die dag is die mens tog afkomstig van die
aap d.m.v evolusie. Christene moet 'n slag gaan stilstaan en die "skille" van hul oë laat
afval en kyk na die diereryk. 'n Onlangse program op National Geographic het getoon
dat bobbejane baie dieselfde karakter eienskappe as mense toon wat betref haat, afguns,
trots, liefde en al daardie emosies wat ons aan onsself toegeien het. Ons is toe nie so spesiaal
of uniek nie. Ag nee wat hierdie hele debat oor godsdiens laat 'n suur smaak in my mond
ek het nou besluit hulle kan maar stry onder mekaar oor die katkesismes, groot doop,
klein doop, beelde in die kerk en moeder Maria maar ek gaan nie my kop breek oor
hierdie goedjies nie. Ons gaan dood en ons liggame gaan terug in die aarde of atmosfeer
en die atome vorm dalk later deel van 'n pragtige boom of wildsbok, dis hoe ons die ewige
lewe be-erwe. Al ooit die gevoel gehad dat jy vlieg of dat jy op 'n plek vantevore was? Groetnis
en strerkte met die stryery en bakleiery oor godsdiens terwyl jy die waarheid miskyk.
"You can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist."
This is the response one often hears when the question of God's
existence is raised.
It is true in one trivial sense, but quite misleading in another
critical sense. If we are using "prove" in the strict sense of
absolute certainty, it is true that we can't prove or disprove God's
existence. But this does not mean that there is no good evidence or
arguments for God, which might make belief in God's existence very
reasonable. We know very little (if anything) with absolute
mathematical certainty, so certainty is neither a reasonable or
necessary standard. Like virtually all of our other knowledge, I think
we can show that it is highly probable that God exists.
It is also important for us to note that merely having a possible
alternative explanation does not defeat the argument. What one needs
is a more probable alternative explanation. For example, most people
believe the earth is a sphere; but a small minority still insist the
earth is flat. Should the "spheroids" abandon their theory just
because the "flat-earthers" have come up with an alternative? Of
course not. The only way this would be necessary is if the
flat-earthers were able to offer overwhelming evidence that theirs is
the more probable theory. And that is unlikely in the extreme.
Good arguments for God's existence are in abundant supply. Alvin
Plantinga, arguably one of the world's more brilliant living
philosophers, recently delivered a paper outlining two dozen or so
theistic arguments. Space will limit me to two.
Argument #1: God Is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the
Universe
Premise 1) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.
Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Most of us have no problem
accepting this principle. We assume its truth in virtually every
aspect in our daily lives. Our experience always confirms it and never
denies it. But surprisingly, philosophers have been unable to prove
its veracity.
Nevertheless, it has always been a fundamental first principle of
philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes." Even the
atheist philosopher David Hume, who showed that we could not prove
with certainty that the causal principle was true, still believed it
to be true and thought so with certainty.
Surely it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe
that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing.
Scientific Confirmation
Secondly, we have both scientific confirmation and logical argument
for the universe having a beginning. According to the standard Big
Bang model, space, time, matter and energy all came into existence
simultaneously around 15 billion years ago.
Furthermore, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, given
enough time the universe will eventually reach a state of
equilibrium-a cold, dark, dead, virtually motionless state. Clearly,
if the universe is without beginning, then there has been an infinite
length of time preceding this present moment. If this is the case,
then the universe should already be in a state of equilibrium. This
should be a cold, dark, dead, virtually motionless universe. There
should be no galaxies, solar systems, stars or planets-not to mention
living organisms. Since there is obviously plenty of heat, light,
movement and life, the past must be finite. The universe had a
beginning.
The third and strongest piece of support for the beginning of the
universe comes from the impossibility of an infinite past. This is
because an actual infinite number of anything cannot exist in the real
world.
We might think that since we use the concept of infinity in
mathematics there would be no problem here. But mathematicians who
work with the concept of infinity, do so by adopting some arbitrary
rules to avoid the absurdities and contradictions that come with an
infinite number of anything. And these rules don't apply to the real
world. Infinity only works in the abstract realm and only with some
special rules.
To see the absurdity and contradictions of an actual infinite number
of things in the real world, imagine a library having an infinite
number of black books and an infinite number of green books
alternating colours on the shelves and numbered consecutively on the
spines.
Does it make any sense to say that there are as many black books as
there are black plus green books together? Not really, but that is
what you would have to say if you want to claim the infinite is
possible in the real world.
Suppose we withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left
in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in
the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found
a way to get them home! Suppose we withdrew the books numbered
4,5,6... and so on. Now how many books are left? Three! Something
surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books
and we're left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an
infinite number and we're left with three-a clear logical
contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the
hypothesis must be false-a library with an infinite number of books
cannot exist.
While we can avoid these contradictions in the mathematical realm by
making up rules like not allowing ourselves to subtract or divide when
using infinity, we cannot in the real world prevent people from taking
books out of libraries.
Therefore, since a beginningless past would be an actual infinite
number of things (events) and since an infinite number of things
cannot exist in the real world, it follows logically that the past is
not infinite. The universe had a beginning.
Furthermore, an infinite past is impossible, because an actual
infinite cannot be formed by adding one member after another. It's
like counting to infinity-you just never get there. Just like we can
never finish counting to infinity, we can never begin to count down to
a negative infinity. But to have a universe with no beginning, you
would have to have an infinite number of past events leading up to the
present. But this is impossible, because, by implication, the present
could never have come to exist.
Thus the Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the
impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a
beginning.
Since whatever begins to exist must have a cause, it follows logically
that the universe has a cause.
What Caused God?
The most common objection to this argument is "What caused God?" But
the question "What caused X?" only makes sense if there was some
indication that "X" had a beginning. In this case, there is nothing
that indicates that the cause of the Big Bang had a beginning. In
fact, since time did not exist beyond the Big Bang, the cause of the
Big Bang must have existed timelessly. Thus, it could have no
beginning, and hence no cause. We may want to say this about the
universe, but we can't, since as we have seen, the evidence points
toward the universe having a beginning.
Argument #2: God Is the Best Explanation for a Universe that Supports
Life
Astrophysicists have been discovering that the Big Bang appears to
have been incredibly fine tuned. The numerical values of the different
natural forces like gravity, electromagnetism, subatomic forces and
the charges of electrons "just happened" to fall into an extremely
narrow range that is conducive for life to exist. Minute changes in
any one of these forces would have destroyed the possibility for life
and, in most cases, destroyed the universe.
Stephen Hawking, probably the best known name in contemporary physics,
has written,
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many
fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the
electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the
electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers
seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the
development of life."(A Brief History of Time, 1988, p. 125)
Sir Fred Hoyle, the astrophysicist, well known for his anti-theistic
feelings tell us that,
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond
question."(Engineering and Science, Nov 1981, cited in The World
Treasury of Physics, ed. By Timothy Ferris, 1991, p. 392)
Consider these examples:
1. If the charge of the Proton and Electron not been Exactly Equal
hydrogen atoms would repel one another and there would be no galaxies.
2. If the Relative Strength of the Four Fundamental Forces-gravity,
electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces-were slightly
different, no life would be possible. If the strong force (the force
that binds protons and neutrons in the nucleus) was just two per cent
less, it would have destroyed all nuclei essential to life. If it was
two per cent more, it would have prevented the formation of protons
and, therefore, matter.
3. If the Proton/Electron Mass Ratio of 1836 to 1 had been slightly
different, there would be no chemistry.
4. If the Balance Between the Gravitational Force and the
Electromagnetic Force in Stars had been altered by a mere 1 in 1040,
it would have produced a universe composed entirely of blue giants and
red dwarfs-stars that don't support life.
5. Given the second law of thermodynamics, a big bang should have
produced a universe with zero order (maximum entropy), and yet our
universe came out very orderly (Low Entropy).
6. If expansion rate of the universe was slower by 1 part in a million
million, the universe would have collapsed very early. If the
expansion rate was greater by 1 part in a million, galaxies stars and
planets never would have formed.
7. If the Centrifugal Force did not Perfectly Balances the
Gravitational Force, every galaxy and solar system would come crashing
in upon itself.
8. If the Resonance (energy) Level of the Carbon 12 Nucleus was
slightly lower, carbon would not form. A slightly higher level would
instantly destroy it. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and the other heavy
elements required for life all depend upon this.
If the Big Bang was merely a chance happening it is virtually
impossible that all the values of all of these forces would have been
exactly right to ensure the survival of the universe and to allow
life. Given the potentially infinite number of other values these
forces could have taken, it is much more likely that they would have
fallen outside the very narrow range that is conducive to life. As
John Leslie, the philosopher of science has put it, "Life prohibiting
universes are much more probable than life permitting universes." This
is evidence of an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang who ensured
that it happened in such a way that the universe could support life.
The Observer Objection
There is one main objection to this argument. It goes something like
this: "It is not surprising that we observe the initial conditions of
the universe to be conducive to life because those are obviously the
only conditions that could precede our existence."
This is only the case if one assumes beforehand that our existence
itself is not surprising. But our argument is that, given the
potentially infinite number of non-life values the forces could have
taken, it is extremely surprising that the entire scenario has taken
place, i.e., the right initial conditions and the existence of
observers. If one assumes that the second part is not surprising, then
of course it follows that the first part is also not surprising. But
that clearly begs the question.
Summary and Conclusion
Just like two cords wound together become a strong rope, so the
cumulative effect of these two arguments provide us with a powerful
case for the existence of God.
Taken together, these two arguments tell us that the cause and
designer of the universe is an intelligent, immaterial, powerful,
changeless being that existed in a timeless, eternal state beyond the
beginning of the universe. This, I suggest, is close enough to the
traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God that we can justifiably
conclude that indeed, God does exist.
Supertaal
Blog
Soek
Hulp
Lede
Registreer
Teken aan
Tuis
RSS
