Dark Energy Overwhelms the "Cosmological Argument"

Above: the last strands of gravitationally bound clusters are torn apart and dispersed by dark energy.

The so-called "cosmological argument" of theists has always been specious, primarily because any theist (even a fundagelical) has been able to invoke it, even though the specific logical constraints for his personal bible-God deity are far more rigid and exclusionary than any generic deity - say that a Deist or pantheist or even Unitarian Universalist might posit. In this way, the fundie has been able to conceal or hide his logical basis behind much more generic formats, with no one choosing to pull him up on it. But this is a perfect time and opportunity to do so, given how much controversy has erupted in the wake of physicist Stephen Hawking's recent comments to do with cosmic self-inception.

Going through recent fundie blogs on Hawking, one despairs at the level of ignorance entrenched in the country – and how we're seemingly mutating into a nation of morons. Other educational survey stats support this dismal view, including that 45% believe the Sun moves round the Earth not the other way, 25% of college educated citizens don’t accept evolution and more than 80% of Americans believe in miracles. A nation of morons!

Anyway, misconceptions on the nature of the universe, its physical causes, natural laws and agents remain- despite the fact that abundant educational resources are available all over the web, including introductory cosmology (video) courses at MIT. See, e.g.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-224-exploring-black-holes-general-relativity-astrophysics-spring-2003/lecture-notes/

No one who purports to pontificate on the universe, its origin or composition has any business doing so without first at least going through the above video lectures – to make sure they aren’t spewing out gibberish. Thus, there is NO excuse to be an idiot, yet fundies continue to do so – erring in their assumptions and basic physics all the way.

Some comments from one dismal-dumb blog, and I show how their pathetic "cosmological arguments" can easily be challenged using the basis of modern astrophysics, in particular- the support for the existence of dark energy.

These fundie comments come under the header, “An Uncaused Universe". So we see he is at least giving some acknowledgement that it might be feasible. He writes:


"Meaningful though an uncaused universe may be , pulling one together in practical terms is something else . The universe is a collection of parts , each contingent and so needing a cause .”

The primary error made above is that the writer totally ignores all of modern quantum mechanics, which as we've already seen, doesn’t hinge on classical causes. See my earlier QM blogs:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/bring-in-clowns-mikey-tries-his-hand-at.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-quantum-mechanics-expectation.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html


Since quantum mechanics underpins all of the micro-scale universe, 99% of it, then clearly the acausal QM basis predominates, certainly at the subatomic level which precedes element and compound formation – say as they occur in molecular clouds and nebulae which then give way to stars, planets etc.. Given the fact of quantum nonlocality, we also see that disparate domains of the cosmos need not be defined by proximate "causality". Thus, effects from quantum systems can exert influence even in the absence of apparent great distances or obstacles. The (1982) Aspect experiment embodies this.

The Aspect device acts to disperse the individual "spins" (in this case differently polarized photons) and send them in pairs (always in pairs) to D1 and D2 simultaneously. The question is, what spin (or photon polarization orientation) is detected by each polarizer at the instant of observation? The general layout is sketched in the schematic diagram below:

D1 ( ) <-------------[D]------------->( )D2

The above scene captures the instant just before each detector intercepts an atomic magnet from the device. The quantum state observed is described by the spin number, which is (-½ ) for D1 and (+½) for D2, corresponding to the polarization 45 degrees and polarization (-45) degrees orientations, respectively. It is important to understand that these values can only be known definitely at the instant of observation. The point is that the instantaneous connections demonstrated between the polarizers-detectors at D1 and D2 obviates classical causality.

In much the same way, as will be noted from the preceding blog links, quantum mechanical systems do not obey the causality restrictions assigned for them as the author implies.

Anyway, he goes on:

“ Either the whole universe is equal to all its parts or else it is more than all its parts . If it is equal to them , then it too needs a cause . The sum of many dependent parts will never equal more than a dependent whole , no matter how big it is . Adding up effects never yields a cause ; it produces only a big pile of effects .”

This is more sophomoric, pseudo-scientific nonsense. The obsession with “parts”, for example, betrays a mind still steeped in the 17th century view of a “clockwork universe”. The clock has parts so the clockwork cosmos must as well – but this is a simplistic and false analogy. For example, dark energy, which comprises 73% of the universe has no “parts”. It is entirely a negative pressure vacuum. Indeed, we can only detect it via its effects on the visible universe, specifically an accelerating expansion which comports with the repulsive gravity associated with negative energy or negative pressure.

In this guise, the universe is not simply equal to “the sum of its parts” but is the sum of those parts PLUS the adjunct emergence of ancillary features (from the dark energy vacuum) that affects those parts.

The argument about “dependent parts” and a “dependent whole” is also misplaced. For example, Hawking was referencing the multiverse theory of the universe (See David Deutsch’s ‘The Fabric of the Universe’) . In the multiverse there are an infinite number of universes which exist parallel to each other but in a higher dimensional M-Brane space. It is also possible for some degree of intrusion of one into the other, and Deutsch in his book discloses how this interphasing might be observed from optical interference experiments. I would suggest interested readers consult pages 40-41 of his monograph, showing different diffraction grating patterns that disclose evidence of intrusion of another universe - into the optical interference field, via distorted shadow fringes or overlaps in the patterns.

In such a multiverse, with all n-universes varying according to their respective sets of fundamental constants – it is absurd to write or talk of “dependent parts” or a “dependent whole”. (Since there exist multiple "wholes" with multiple parts not related to any other wholes or parts!) Using advanced topology one can show none of these antiquated conceptions holds up. (I plan to do this in a future blog).

Apart from that, just focusing on one universe known to have dark energy - such as ours- it is manifestly clear the dark energy aspect doesn’t depend on the visible matter aspect. It appears that the latter may well be the fluke. To fix ideas, examine Figure 1 closely, and especially the view on the left, showing a slice of the visible cosmos taken from the 2D Sloan Sky Survey. Note that in the (left) sector, the "voids" (holes between clusters) are distributed toward the periphery of the field. There is much greater fractal density and complexity toward the center of the sector. This shows dark energy has not yet had its final say. The incidence of voids, however, will be expected to increase as dark energy accelerates cosmic expansion. Bear in mind again this is not the WHOLE cosmos, but a 5 hour (75 degree ) slice from 10h to 15 Right Ascension. But what is occurring here can easily be applied to all the other sectors (totally 24 h of Right Ascension or 360 degrees, with no loss in generality.

Now, the right sector shows the configuration and fractal density some 10^88 years hence. In this case even the residual voids have been pushed to the periphery by dark energy. (Shown in black.) The choice of black is deliberate: to separate dark energy vacuum from normal space-time voids separating galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. (Existence of normal voids confirms the existence of the normal positive force of gravitational attraction, as opposed to repulsion)

The sentence about “adding up effects never yields a cause” is a tautology that doesn’t advance the argument or make any case whatsoever. Obviously, adding up effects doesn’t make a cause, but the writer seems oblivious to his own need to factor quantum acausal determinism into his cosmic perspective. (See, e.g. the last of the three blog links above). More seriously, the writer confuses sufficient reasons (such as invoked in science) with causation. Philosopher of science Mario Bunge ('Causality and Modern Science') has warned about this tendency :

"Giving reasons is no longer regarded as assigning causes. In science it means to combine particular propositions about facts with hypotheses, laws, axioms and definitions.... In general, there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation".

Thus, I can invoke all the quantum principles - such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - I desire, but these do not have to conform to any classical causality, nor would one expect them to . (Especially as the Heisenberg principle discloses mutual interference of observables and hence defies causality in this limit of the micro-scale)

Because causality and arguments arising therefrom are so fraught with meta-analysis and self-reference, Bunge (and many others, see e.g. the textbook, 'Logic' by Robert Baum, p. 469, "Causal Explanations') instead endorse setting out of "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. (A necessary condition is such that in its absence an event cannot occur, while a sufficient condition is such that in its presence it must occur) If one cannot provide such conditions, say for any claimed entity (assumed dependent on cause - or non-cause) then he or she is talking bollocks.
In the case of the origin of the cosmos, we can at least provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for a spontaneously incepted quantum fluctuation. Thus, we avoid having to rely on ambiguous, subjective notions like "aseity" which basic claim certainly confers no reality, independent of empirical tests. (But as I will show shortly, dark energy does confer a large degree of non-contingency!)

He goes on, undaunted by his existing display of ignorance:

“Only if the universe is more than all its effects can it be uncaused and necessary . But to claim that there is a something more , uncaused and necessary on which everything in the universe is dependent is to claim exactly what the theist means by a Necessary Being on which all contingent beings depend for their existence . “

But, as we saw, this is exactly the case! When we add up all the cosmos’ manifest effects, we behold the universe that emerges is more than those (visible) effects. For example, we see the effects of gravitation pulling molecules and matter together to form star systems, solar systems and galaxies. But – we see additional non-manifested(in the visible universe) agents ripping them apart via a repulsive effect. Thus, the manifest cosmos in toto exceeds the putative cosmos observed in telescopes, via x—ray detectors etc..

Quantifying things can help to see them better, and let's do so - using the cosmic sectors shown in Fig. 1. The best way to quantify what's happening is to use the lacunarity to compare the sectors, then the fractal density. (See previous blog on 'Cosmic fractals'). The lacunarity is defined:

L = Nr(k> Rs)/ Rs-D

Nr is a product of objects and linear space but which can be generalized into a sector volume, in 3D. If one wants, he may think of it as a kind of proxy for fractal density. In terms of 'N', the actual cosmic sector holds about 100,000 galaxies so N = 10^5. We let Rs = 10^3 Mpc and so the lacunarity is solely dependent on N, call it 10^5. The effect of "dark energy ripping" is to reduce the lacunarity and if we make similar computations for the right side of Fig. 1 we will find - after 10^88 years, that N ~ 10. That is, ten galaxies and hence a massive reduction in effects. (Gravitational, since it is positive attraction that builds new galaxies). For those interested in the fractal dimension comparisons, I showed before that one uses: D = (log k')/ (log k) ~ 3.17 for the actual (existing) sector at left. Recomputing for the dark energy dominated sector yields D ~ 1. Meanwhile, the current fractal density for the sector is g ~ 1.8 while that for the future sector dominated by dark energy is g ~ 0.4. (Recall: g ~ [3/4pi] AR^g, where A is a normalization constant, in this case ~ 1)

In other words, the normal voids and systems of the universe are all being replaced by a vast negative pressure vacuum! This is eradicating all the contingent manifestations (e.g. galaxy clusters, galaxies, globular clusters, open star clusters, planetary systems etc.), and ultimately leaving only itself. Fig. 2 meanwhile, shows a hypothetical scene around the distant future time when the last wisps of collective aggregations of matter (gravitationally diluted galaxies in diluted clusters of galaxies, perhaps) are being dispersed further apart by dark energy. Again, for lacunarity, the size of the voids is not the issue so much as the frequency of voids overall within the fractal structure - in this case a 75 degree sector of the visible universe. As we see a higher frequency of voids it means there are more interspersed aggregations within them. But as we see the frequency of voids decrease, it means something is using up the space and not making any more aggregations - galaxies, clusters etc.

Now, in the fundie's next line he commits the ‘One true Scotsman’ fallacy by claiming that we also assert that (from the preceding) we’re mandating a “necessary Being on which all contingent beings depend”. No, because dark energy is a state (energy state) not a "Being". Also, it isn't at all clear how we (contingent beings) "depend" on dark energy. Only that dark energy will still be around long after we're gone. Once all galaxy remnants are maximally dispersed beyond the range of gravitational effects, in about 10^90 years, then the ripping agent (dark energy) no longer has anything more to “rip” and so effectively terminates its EFFECTS along with the (visible) cosmos it has ripped apart. However, if dark energy is a negative pressure vacuum as we suspect, it will continue to exist in that negative energy form. Once more – to recall how it works:

Based on the data from Type Ia supernovae, one is led directly to the inference of an equation of state:

w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

Here is where dark energy enters – not by choice- but by the data and observations being forced on us to accept it! This is also consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure p is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts.
Specifically the term (rho + 3 p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where rho = energy density and p = pressure)

If we set:

0 = (rho+ 3p) then: p = - rho/3

and if p less than (- rho /3) we have gravity that repels

Looking back to the earlier equation for w, one finds:

p = - rho (e.g. pressure = - energy density)and - rho less than (- p /3)


However, I know of nobody who would associate this negative vacuum pressure entity with “God” or a divinity!

Conversely, if the universe is really a multiverse, then one universe will always exist at one time (or billions in parallel) depending on the conditions or physical constants in each.

He goes on:

“The whole issue can be clarified by asking the nontheist this question : If everything in the universe ( i.e., every contingent being ) suddenly ceased to exist , would there be anything left in existence ? If not , then the universe as a whole is contingent too , since the existence of the whole is dependent on the parts . “

As we saw from my dark energy analysis to do with lacunarity, however, if all the contingent cosmos was eliminated (lacunarity of the cosmic sectors ~ 0), the dark energy vacuum would still be left – though its effects would be absent since it would have ripped apart the manifest, observed, contingent cosmos. Thus, the dark energy or negative pressure would be non-contingent in terms of cause. (And indeed, as I already explained in numerous earlier blogs, it was a negative energy bubble which was responsible for spontaneously incepting the cosmos out of itself – or from “nothing” – meaning literally, a dark energy VACUUM in conformal space-time!) Again, since dark energy has NO parts - all the pressure is homogeneous in magnitude, of negative sign and discordant with observed entities, so his last statement is meaningless about the "whole dependent on the parts". (Which is also refuted using Hawking's multiverse basis!)

He then writes:


“But if something remained after every contingent part of the universe suddenly ceased to exist , then there really is a transcendent necessary uncaused Something which is not dependent on the universe for its existence . But in either case , the atheists' claim fails “

Once more, faulty logic. Since the dark energy vacuum remains (Fig 1- right side) and a dark energy bubble started it all – as we saw, it can be putatively argued as being “uncaused”. However - it is emphatically not “transcendent” but rather still physical. However, its physical nature is not related to anything in our normal experience. Contrary to the “atheist claim failing” it holds up totally! It shows there is a non-contingent aspect of the universe that will go on forever, and moreover which is physical – since it can be described by things like equations of state. (No one to date has yet been able to think of even one way that a dark energy vacuum, once it exists and dominates - can be destroyed, or removed. It might be diluted, however, or it might reduce to the Dirac Aether vacuum condition - that is subsiding at the scale of the Planck Length or L(p) ~ 10^-33 cm)

He doggedly rambles forth:

“Now , some object that theistic arguments persuade only those who already believe , and who do not need them . Therefore, they are useless . But , whether anyone is convinced by an argument depends on several factors . For one thing , even if the argument is sound , persuasiveness will depend in part on whether the argument is understood . “


This of course is true, but it cuts both ways. The real question is whether the fundie (or anyone else) so remiss in terms of his physics or math background, can grasp the basis for a physical non-contingent dark energy vacuum? In other words, if the fundie lacks sufficient physics it is clear he has no recourse but to revert to the default of “god of the gaps” position of most believers and simply call the dark energy vacuum “God”. BUT, does it really make sense ontologically and empirically to refer to DARK ENERGY as “God”?

What one would have to ask for here, despite the proposed "cosmological argument", is for the person to deliver the necessary and sufficient conditions for HIS proposed deity to exist. If we have those, we can then better see if the “God” so defined matches up with the dark energy vacuum. If not, if the fundie punts again, then he really doesn’t know what it is he’s talking about – so can’t expect us to either.

We can accept, I guess, that he's entitled to call the dark energy vacuum 'God" and worship it, but somehow I doubt his bible-believing fellowship would relish the thought. Seems like he's hoist on his own non-contingent petard!

He presses on as full of it as ever:

“Once the mind understands the argument , giving assent to it is a matter of the will . No one is ever forced to believe in God simply because the mind understands that there is a God . “

Again, true – but again, it cuts both ways! I have shown the basis for a non-contingent dark energy vacuum which will exist after all the contingent aspects of the cosmos cease. By his cosmological arguments this has to be “transcendent” and “God”. But do you really want to go there? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to try to prove dark energy has even a rudimentary consciousness, but maybe he might believe it!

Thus the matter of the mind (HIS) in understanding the argument, must be reflected in HIS WILL to deliver the necessary and sufficient conditions for his god’s existence – to either enable to see it is compatible with the dark energy vacuum, or NOT. If not, we then expect him to explain to us how it is this dark energy can be co-existent with any god he conjures up, as opposed to vanishing.

Finally, he babbles away at the end (mercifully):

"Lastly , many objections have been proposed against the proofs for the existence of God . They are usually based on a misunderstanding of the proofs . None succeed in falsifying the arguments . If they did they would be a proof that you cannot have a proof . That is a self-defeating argument in itself ."

This is, of course, a non-sequitur. The dismissals of all hitherto claimed "proofs" of the existence of God have all been based on sound logic and epistemology and the failure of such on the believers' side. To wit, they (believers) are not even able to coherently argue why there should be something than nothing, when the former delimits their deity's infinity as well as perfection. If then "nothing" be the simpler state, in which an invisible deity could still exist as "spirit" then why "create" a universe at all ? Why add to one's self-sufficient perfect Being? Especially why add a creation which would be fraught with violence, despair, "sin" and all the rest, and which an ominiscient deity would have to know (IF it was judgmental) that it would have to condemn billions before he even created them! This itself makes the act of creation an act of violence against those created- who would not be able (for whatever reason, including where born) to live up to its standards.

If the theists can't even meet the minimal threshold of explaining why something than nothing - when nothing (meaning only the divine - no creation) be the more perfect state, then they are nowhere, and certainly nowhere near "proving" God's existence in something ("creation"). Bluntly, if they can't prove (God + creation) is better than God, period, then how the hell can they prove "God, period" exists??

But his last sentence really takes the cake for incomprehensible tripe. He claims if we did succeed in falsifying his arguments, it would "be a proof that you cannot have a proof ". Errr....no, bozo, it would be a proof that your "proof" was only a pseudo-proof! Or, a "proof' only existing in your febrile neurons, not on paper.

Again, here is where we stand:

I have shown that dark energy, or more exactly the dark energy vacuum, can be considered a non-contingent universe in itself, since only it will be left at the end of time - when the "Big rip" tears everything asunder to the level of lacunarity zero. Now, IF the dark energy is thus non-contingent, are you - Mr. Fundie-going to call it "god" or do you have a different one in mind? If so, give its proof, apart from dark energy, and also the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist, which you've so artfully dodged thus far.

The ball is in thy court! But again , as always , I wager the theists will remain "deaf , dumb , and blind." As well as ignorant!