Our Big Bang–Fixed or Fair?

April 26, 2012

Based on the current theory of quantum mechanics the particular orientation and configuration of the particles in the Big Bang randomly took on an extremely rare configuration which is necessary for intelligent life to emerge.* As I understand it, such a chance occurrence might be represented by a poker game in which a deck of cards is shuffled fairly and with a single ensuing deal of four hands where each hand ends up as a royal flush.**

* If gravity were one trillionth of one percent stronger our universe would have collapsed long ago, and if that much weaker the material would have separately so quickly that planets and stars could never have formed.

** A royal flush consists of the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and the 10 card, all of the same suit.

Now if a fair deck of cards were fairly shuffled and dealt out in four hands trillions and trillions of times statisticians would expect to find four royal flush hands occasionally. And since this outcome is expected occasionally, there is no reason not to find such an outcome on the first deal. Unexpected, certainly, but not impossible.*

* In Michael Guillen’s book, Amazing Truths (Chapter 4), we learn that the probability of our universe originating such that it developed as we know it (with intelligent life being present) is equal to the probability of a giant tornado ripping through an enormous junkyard and assembling the junk in such a way that a fully functioning Boeing 747 emerges, i.e., essentially zero.

Science is not satisfied with this thinking (involving the unexpected), it seems, and wants to make the random shuffle of the elements work out to where our world with intelligent life is expected. There are two ways to do this.

One way is to conceive of the Big Bang as a boomerang phenomenon where the particles explode, expand, slow down and then finally reverse and return to a single point for another Big Bang (a so-called yo-yo phenomenon). This would be like considering the card shuffle and deal in our analogy as one of trillions of shuffles and deals and so where this rare four royal flush deal of ours would  be expected statistically to occur rarely but still occasionaly. However this will not work for our known Big Bang because, instead of slowing down and preparing for a return, the elements and worlds are expanding and separating at an accelerating rate.

The only remaining way for our particular and peculiar Big Bang to be expected is for there to be trillions and trillions of Big Bangs going on  simultaneously in separate, parallel universes. And this then would be like having trillions of separate gaming rooms, in each of which a single honest shuffle and deal is taking place. Then a shuffle and outcome of four royal flush hands would be expected in a few of those rooms.

This, as I understand the matter, is the justification for the multi-verse theory of modern physics. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any such thing,* but only a desire on the part of science to come up with the expected rather than the unexpected with regard to the origination of our actual universe. It is not a need of science, but only a desire.

* This theory could be visualized via a block of Swiss cheese, and each of the multiple holes in the cheese would represent a separate universe.

The only actual fact is this single Big Bang (or, with our analogy, this one-time shuffle and four-hand deal). Thus based entirely and solely on what we know and have actual evidence for,* the scientists will have to accept our universe and existence as an exceedingly unexpected, random outcome. Or regarding the card game: “It just happened to work out that in this single and thoroughly honest shuffle and deal we have four royal flushes.”

* Which excludes the multi-verse theory as just that, a theory and not a fact, for there is not the slightest bit of evidence for other universes, nor is any evidence expected in any way.

The alternative is the hypothesis that the Big Bang was rigged, or the four royal flushes were the result of a stacked deck. Science cannot accept any such hypothesis, for although there is just as much evidence for the stacked deck as for the honest and random shuffle (no evidence in either case, and there is just as little means of testing either), a stacked deck will not fit into the overall Weltanschauung of science.

In the end then the only certainty is that a single shuffle and deal has been made with the four royal flush hand outcome (the present Big Bang). As an observer the theoretical scientist would respond, “This is no proof of a stacked deck,” while that same scientist as a player in a game where the actual deal resulted in such an outcome, would say, “I certainly don’t intend to bet against that dealer” (for it certainly seems that the dealer is a cheat).

So theoretically the outcome, i.e., a one-time Big Bang leading to intelligent life or a one-time deal leading to the four royal flushes, is fine, but practically speaking (regarding any betting at a deal) the honest deck and deal are highly suspect, and likewise then also must be the Big Bang as a random one-time event.

In a word: there is no scientific evidence or possibility of such evidence for the existence of God, and so science rejects the existence of God; and there is no scientific evidence or possibility of such evidence for the existence of the multi-verses, and yet science accepts the multi-verses.*

* Kant would remind us that this is the proper route to take, for if science were to accept the existence of God it would cut off further scientific inquiry. And besides, he would add, the existence of God is sufficiently established through our knowledge of the moral law.

I guess the final and practical question is this: upon observing such a deal of four royal flushes, are we facing an honest dealer, or is it a magician/cheat who can just make things happen and come out in a particular way? How much money would any intelligent and knowledgeable person bet that the deck in such a deal is not stacked?

Author contact: pmr#$kantwesley.com, replacing #$ with @

Filed under: Journal

1 Comment Leave a Comment

Leave a Comment


(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.


April 2012
« Mar   Aug »

Recent Posts