"The only problem with his 17th century equation is that in order to explain the 20th century Big Bang, "god or nature" must have existed prior to the beginning of our current space-time universe." — Gnomon

Yeah. That's a wrap for Gnome. — Banno

You don't agree with my inference that the "Big Bang" put an end to the eternal universe assumption, and re-opened the question of First Cause??? I'm crushed! Guess it's time for "Gnome" to slink away from the slanted "light of reason". . . . . Or not. :groan:

Ironically, the sarcastic nickname came from Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who had presumed that Nature existed forever, or at least was in a steady state. Other astronomers, seeing the implications for an instantaneous divine creation event, began to imagine other explanations for the sudden appearance of our material universe (along with space & time & laws of nature) that avoided the logical inference of a law-maker. The most common alternative scenario is some variation on the never-ending Multiverse or the sci-fi Many Worlds conjectures. Moreover, the Inflationary Model, in which the whole universe popped into existence in a fraction of a second, sounds more like a miracle than even the biblical creation in seven days.

After many years of myth-making, they still have no physical evidence to support their hypothetical models, taking for granted that the laws of Nature, and their embodiment in matter are eternal -- hence no need for a Lawgiver. So, those imaginative alternatives are not yet empirical facts. In fact, you could call The Multiverse a materialist's creation myth, starring magic Matter. Fortunately, philosophers are not bound to a belief in an infinite & unbounded universe, So, they are able to see the logic behind Aristotle's necessary First & Final Cause axiom for the chain of causation.

So, the gnarly gnome will continue to explore all plausible answers to those open questions. Re-opened by the calculations of a finite beginning, as revealed by hard-nosed empirical scientists, following the astronomical evidence where it led : to a singular point (a question mark) at the beginning of Time. :nerd:

Albert Einstein, in his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory, dedicates a chapter to this idea, as its title suggests: The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. In the words of us laypeople, Einstein – among others – suggests a “spherical” universe, one in which we can venture out in a straight line, and circumnavigate back to our starting position. But how is such a cosmos possible, let alone fathomable?
https://futurism.com/finite-yet-unbounded
Note -- That sounds like circular reasoning, in which you end-up right back where you started.

The Aristotelian universe was a finite bounded sphere. But it was also eternal---unbounded in time.
http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/aristotle/aristotle_hoplite_spear.html

Meh. see Hawking's paper at http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv48pas.pdf

You are, it seems, attempting to apply Aristotelian logic in a place where it cannot be applied. The appropriate language is not Aristotle's, but Hawking's. Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level.

Right or wrong, what the Hawking article does is to demonstrate that the Aristotelian notion of causation does not apply at the cosmological level. — Banno

Is that a fact -- or an opinion? :wink:

Well, where is Aristotle, or even causation, mentioned in Hawking's article?

Is that all you got?

But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In — 3017amen

Like a circling eddy in a stream, yea.

My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder. — 3017amen

One idea would be that just as I reflect on events and my self is generated by that reflection, the tribe's living self is generated by saying how we got here?

But we are guided nonetheless by our Will and intellect to move forward with living life. In — 3017amen
Like a circling eddy in a stream, yea. — frank

Sure. Like James' notion of our stream of consciousness. Which begs yet another question, if this energy cause, results in this cognitive behavior, does the law(s) of energy apply here? Meaning, if energy can neither be created or destroyed, what happens to conscious energy, I wonder. Or maybe it's not germane because it's (consciousness) not exclusively material(?).

My question relates to how that cognition works with philosophical theories about how we got here. Is that foregoing an example of top-down reasoning or bottom-up reasoning, I wonder. — 3017amen
One idea would be that just as I reflect on events and my self is generated by that reflection, the tribe's living self is generated by saying how we got here? — frank

Could you elaborate a bit on that one Frank? Is that like Wheeler's PAP?

In the alternative, what I was thinking is that in our way of making sense about cause and effect (from what we just talked about in reflecting on our past experiences-SK quote) is that considered top-down (or bottom-up) thinking... , what other kinds of thinking uncovers cause and effect and how we got here?

Anthropism/Anthropocentrism may mean the design of the carbon-based cell somehow came before or was created by the order of nature, in the exquisite fitness of the laws of nature themselves, for all life on Earth:

Nowhere is this fitness more apparent than in the properties of the key atomic constituents of the cell. Each of the atoms of life—including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, as well as several metal elements—features a suite of unique properties fine-tuned to serve highly specific, indispensable roles in the cell. Moreover, some of these properties are specifically fit for essential roles in the cells of advanced aerobic organisms like ourselves.

Sure. Like James' notion of our stream of consciousness. Which begs yet another question, if this energy cause, results in this cognitive behavior, does the law(s) of energy apply here? Meaning, if energy can neither be created or destroyed, what happens to conscious energy, I wonder. Or maybe it's not germane because it's (consciousness) not exclusively material(?). — 3017amen

Dr O'Dowd from Space Time says that's probably not true, conservation of energy that is.

It's a helpful idea for some kinds of analysis, but it's not true in the absolute sense.

O'Dowd also cautions against thinking of energy as a thing in its own right. I need to watch that one again.

Could you elaborate a bit on that one Frank? Is that like Wheeler's PAP? — 3017amen

Gotta monder it for a while.