Out to disprove the Big Bang theory

[Vance]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

[semlogo]

I don't think the Big Bang has much to do either way with Mormon theology. I see no conflict.

[thesometimesaint]

I wish him luck, but that is a pretty big challenge. I see no disagreement between the Big Bang and Mormon Theology. After all the Gods' did say let there be light and there was.

[Nofear]

I don't think the Big Bang has much to do either way with Mormon theology. I see no conflict.

I wish him luck, but that is a pretty big challenge. I see no disagreement between the Big Bang and Mormon Theology. After all the Gods' did say let there be light and there was.

Some interpretations or extrapolations of the Big Bang Theory have issues with Mormonism (e.g. a finite starting point to time has problems with self-existent entities).

Some interpretations inside Mormon theology have problems with the Big Bang Theory (e.g. infinite regress of gods).

Nevertheless, there are interpretations of both that can co-exist nicely together.

PS: It is a pet-peeve of mine when Mormons interpret Genesis (or Moses or Abraham) as a descriptor of the creation of the universe. Genesis is only a description of the organization of this planet and this planet alone.

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

It is always the interpretations that get us into trouble.

[semlogo]

Some interpretations or extrapolations of the Big Bang Theory have issues with Mormonism (e.g. a finite starting point to time has problems with self-existent entities).

Some interpretations inside Mormon theology have problems with the Big Bang Theory (e.g. infinite regress of gods).

Nevertheless, there are interpretations of both that can co-exist nicely together.

PS: It is a pet-peeve of mine when Mormons interpret Genesis (or Moses or Abraham) as a descriptor of the creation of the universe. Genesis is only a description of the organization of this planet and this planet alone.

God isn't self-existent in Mormon theology.

[Nofear]

God isn't self-existent in Mormon theology.

In some interpretations God is. But neither is it what I said. The word choice "entities" was deliberate.

[BCSpace]

Perhaps the bigger implication is for God Himself. If this boy is already doing Integral Calculus, he might be gunning for Top Job in the afterlife.

[semlogo]

In some interpretations God is. But neither is it what I said. The word choice "entities" was deliberate.

Those who wish to turn Mormonism into some sort of watered down protestantism "interpret" God that way.

[Nofear]

Those who wish to turn Mormonism into some sort of watered down protestantism "interpret" God that way.

You may consider reading, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Blake T. Ostler. While I may personally disagree with much of his theological interpretations, I can respect them. But I suppose this is all really irrelevant as your comments suggest you have basically no idea what I was talking about in my prior posts.

[Nofear]

God isn't self-existent in Mormon theology.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough;

Points if you can identify the source of that quote.

[semlogo]

Points if you can identify the source of that quote.

Okay, good point. That's King Follet. But Joseph was saying that we are just as self-existent as God, and that God isn't special in that way, and that God was once a man. God isn't self existent in any way that interferes with the Big Bang.

[Nofear]

Okay, good point. That's King Follet. But Joseph was saying that we are just as self-existent as God, and that God isn't special in that way, and that God was once a man. God isn't self existent in any way that interferes with the Big Bang.

Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed: they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.

More King Follett for you. Inasmuch as one adopts an interpretation of the Big Bang theory which has a beginning, that is pretty clearly inconsistent with what Joseph Smith here is saying about the pure principles of element having "no beginning".

To reiterate my original post:

Some interpretations or extrapolations of the Big Bang Theory have issues with Mormonism (e.g. a finite starting point to time has problems with self-existent entities).

Some interpretations inside Mormon theology have problems with the Big Bang Theory (e.g. infinite regress of gods).

Nevertheless, there are interpretations of both that can co-exist nicely together.

[semlogo]

More King Follett for you. Inasmuch as one adopts an interpretation of the Big Bang theory which has a beginning, that is pretty clearly inconsistent with what Joseph Smith here is saying about the pure principles of element having "no beginning".

To reiterate my original post:

Some interpretations or extrapolations of the Big Bang Theory have issues with Mormonism (e.g. a finite starting point to time has problems with self-existent entities).

Some interpretations inside Mormon theology have problems with the Big Bang Theory (e.g. infinite regress of gods).

Nevertheless, there are interpretations of both that can co-exist nicely together.

The Big Bang is the beginning of our universe, not necessarily all universes, assuming they exist.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would be interesting in getting Tarski's perspective on this kid. I don;t really care if he agree's with his theories, just what he thought about his math skills.

[Nofear]

The Big Bang is the beginning of our universe, not necessarily all universes, assuming they exist.

Multiverses are extensions/appendages to basic Big Bang theory.

Again the point is that one cannot make the blanketed statement that the Big Bang theory has no problems with Mormonism. Depending on what you mean by Big Bang theory and how you interpret Mormonism there can be problems (and probably more often than not). Personally I see how the two worldviews can coexist. Unfortunately, many Mormonism subscribe to interpretations which are mutually exclusive wittingly or not (indeed, based on your comments I would judge you likely to be among that group).

As to the original article, the kid may be a brilliant with mathematics but there is quite a bit more to cosmology than math. As astrophysicist Professor Scott Tremaine's puts it, he suggests "Jake to spend as much time as possible to learn more and to further develop his theory".

[Mars]

Multiverses are extensions/appendages to basic Big Bang theory.

I think there's a pun in there somewhere...

[thesometimesaint]

Nofear:

I don't have a theological problem with the Big Bang. I'm comfortable with more than one Big Bang though I do know that is a highly theoretical, and debatable, position to take. So I don't see a problem for LDS Theology in that we are eternal beings.

[cdowis]

More King Follett for you. Inasmuch as one adopts an interpretation of the Big Bang theory which has a beginning, that is pretty clearly inconsistent with what Joseph Smith here is saying about the pure principles of element having "no beginning".

Big Bang does not preclude multiple (infinite) creations. Check out Brane Theory, for example.

[TAO]

Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean that there were universes before us - although that theory is very possible, and I like it alot.

What it does require is that energy of some form existed before the big bang. Matter, or Vacuum Fluctuations, or something, must have existed before, I believe.

[Nofear]

Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean that there were universes before us - although that theory is very possible, and I like it alot.

What it does require is that energy of some form existed before the big bang. Matter, or Vacuum Fluctuations, or something, must have existed before, I believe.

Indeed so. To elaborate a little: the standard big bang model -- the one that makes the predictions consistent with our observations -- only starts at some very very hot, very very dense initial state. It is commonly extrapolated to a point of singularity and that is might what be called the standard interpretation. There are other versions such as the ekpryotic model (uses the branes cdowis mentions). Other interpretations will use some form of multiverse such as that proposed by chaotic inflation where bubble universes are formed. And there are quite a few beyond that.

What I called the standard interpretation -- that does not work well with LDS theology. Yet, there are interpretations/variations of the big bang model that have the potential to be compatible*. Nevertheless, because the "standard" interpretation is incompatible, it is very probably misleading to say, without qualification, that the big bang theory is compatible with Mormonism. It is even more incorrect to make statements such as "I don't think the Big Bang has much to do either way with Mormon theology. I see no conflict. " As the astrophysicist said to the boy genius, "learn more".

* Though for the record, I see numerous problems with these multiverse models. Though there is dependence here on what interpretation of Mormonism one takes. But that is perhaps a subject for another time.

[TAO]

Nofear, have you seen my model for Mormonism/Big Bang relation?

I use a form of universe encapsulation ;-). So kind of like multiverse - only universes are inside other universes.

Hehe... it's completely theoretical... but it does fit in with Mormonism somewhat. Don't think it's correct though... but who knows, maybe it is =). I kinda doubt it though.

[bookofmormontruth]

Nofear, have you seen my model for Mormonism/Big Bang relation?

I use a form of universe encapsulation ;-). So kind of like multiverse - only universes are inside other universes.

Hehe... it's completely theoretical... but it does fit in with Mormonism somewhat. Don't think it's correct though... but who knows, maybe it is =). I kinda doubt it though.

Like in the Men in Black movie? I like it!

[TAO]

Like in the Men in Black movie? I like it!

I dunno, never watched MIB XD.

It is basically like this... there is multiple universes that are 'distantly' connected aka, they are not at the beginning and end of one another, rather, they are in a form of space. In other words... universes occupy a space and they expand like a bubble before shrinking again. And in this 'space', there are other universes doing the same thing. Because that 'space', or we shall call it 'universe-relative space', contains other universes and matter, the universes can have slight effects on one another, but do not directly relate most of the time, I think. Unless they collide - but I have no idea how that would happen. Anyways, so this space is contained inside of another 'super-universe', which undergoes it's own 'universe-relative time', expanding and contracting the 'universe relative space', effecting the matter and universes inside of it. And then the cycle continues for ever, I think... that 'super-universe' is contained inside a 'super-super-universe' with other 'super-universes', etc.

Kinda confusing, and rather complex, and most likely incorrect, but fun to think about XD.

What I like about it though is really, you don't have to think outside of time. Time always exists in one sense or another. Your just looking at it from a different perspective. Same with space. Always exists - just on a larger level.

But as said, it's hypothetical =P. Just for fun XD.

[bookofmormontruth]

I dunno, never watched MIB XD.

It is basically like this... there is multiple universes that are 'distantly' connected aka, they are not at the beginning and end of one another, rather, they are in a form of space. In other words... universes occupy a space and they expand like a bubble before shrinking again. And in this 'space', there are other universes doing the same thing. Because that 'space', or we shall call it 'universe-relative space', contains other universes and matter, the universes can have slight effects on one another, but do not directly relate most of the time, I think. Unless they collide - but I have no idea how that would happen. Anyways, so this space is contained inside of another 'super-universe', which undergoes it's own 'universe-relative time', expanding and contracting the 'universe relative space', effecting the matter and universes inside of it. And then the cycle continues for ever, I think... that 'super-universe' is contained inside a 'super-super-universe' with other 'super-universes', etc.

Kinda confusing, and rather complex, and most likely incorrect, but fun to think about XD.

What I like about it though is really, you don't have to think outside of time. Time always exists in one sense or another. Your just looking at it from a different perspective. Same with space. Always exists - just on a larger level.

But as said, it's hypothetical =P. Just for fun XD.

Sorry, I can't follow geniuses, but I think I kinda got it.

Maybe in the same light that there a multiple dimensions - like the Spirit world actually is here on earth.

You should seriously see MIB though - they kinda have the same concept.