The Problems with Modern Cosmology

The problems with modern cosmology are multivariate. Worse, each problem appears to create further problems, which implies that the problems themselves are at least potentially infinite. I’ll go through a few of the inherent issues that make modern cosmology self-contradictory.

  1. Spatiality as unbounded.

    Positing spatiality as bounded results in a number of issues that resulted in its being posited as unbounded by cosmologists. However positing spatiality as unbounded results in further issues with specific cosmological models that render them contradictory to the overall model.

    1. The expanding universe model:

      If spatiality is unbounded, at least in an apparent sense, we have to understand how it can simultaneously be finite and measurable. The problem with the latter is that it requires a perspective outside reality, which is not possible with the overall model. We can look at the problem in this manner.

      The Earth is itself finite but apparently, at least from the perspective of someone on it, unbounded, i.e. the horizon appears infinite, it always regresses no matter how far we travel. We know that in practice it would prove finite even to someone on the Earth, since eventually spatial travel in a given direction would land that someone back where they started. The problem is that the simultaneous appearance of unboundedness with the real boundary of the Earth requires at least a potential perspective outside the Earth. Since technologically this perspective is no longer merely potential but a realized perspective, we know that it is a possible perspective that has in fact been actualized. The problem with reality as a whole being apparently unbounded but finite is that there is no potential perspective outside reality that would render it finite by giving it a boundary. This simultaneously means that there is no perspective that can measure such a boundary.

      The further problem this creates with the expanding universe model is that, as unmeasurable in even a potential sense, there is no way to understand this expansion spatially. We would have no means of demonstrating that reality is in fact bigger today than it was a billion years ago, since we can’t measure reality now nor posit its size in the past.

    2. The Temporal Boundary:

      Since spatiality is modeled as unbounded, and temporality is understood as an aspect of spatiality, there is a contradiction in that temporality is itself understood as bounded. Thought about in the dimensional model, this would mean that spatial dimensions are unbounded while the temporal dimension is bounded, at least in the past, specifically in the current model bounded at 15.8 billion years. This boundary of temporality, like any posited spatial boundary, requires a possible perspective outside temporality. This possible perspective is posited as the perspective of the singularity itself, since it is temporally tensed, i.e. it was but no longer is, and is therefore temporally perspectival. This would imply, though, that the apparently infinite horizon of spatiality is itself a potentially perspectival spatial position. However that potentially perspectival position is simultaneously denied by the impossibility of there being a spatial point outside spatiality itself. Another way of describing the problem is that the perspective of the singularity is not temporal, since the creation of temporality is a function of the destruction of the singularity, yet simultaneously is temporal, in the sense that it no longer is but in some sense was. If it is not temporal then it is not a potential perspective on temporality, which implies that temporality would also have to have an infinite horizon, i.e. it could not have a temporal boundary, which means from any perspective within reality it could not have an apparent beginning. Without an apparent beginning, though, the singularity could not be tensed. In a sense it would have to always be, in whatever way we understand being in that case. This change in understanding is precisely the change in understanding of the creator-being from apologetics to theology. In the former creation was understood as having a specific temporal boundary, to the latter understanding of reality as a constant self-expression of the infinite horizon itself.

    3. Boundary itself as being necessarily self-posited by the bounded being, and therefore destructive to the causal assumptions of the model itself:

      If we look at any being as a systemic entity, the boundary of that being has to be self-posited, and self-posited retroactively, in order that the system itself arises, which destroys the mechanistic causality that is a fundamental presumption of cosmology. This can be understood through a specific example, but applies to any systemic entity from a human being to a galaxy and beyond to reality itself, if it is understood as a unified entity. As a specific example, we can look at a single celled organism.

      The boundary issue arises for mechanistic causality at the moment that the boundary itself arises as a temporally specific moment. At the moment the boundary comes into being, the cell is not yet differentiated from its environment, the boundary itself creates this differentiation, and therefore simultaneously creates the cell and its environment as differentiated. However at that moment the interior of the cell is still undifferentiated from the rest of reality, since it is precisely the boundary and the resulting cell membrane that begins to differentiate the interior by allowing molecular movements to be differentiated inbound and outbound, creating an interior that is differentiated in a molecular sense from its environment. The boundary, then, is at its origin simply a posited boundary, since even as a membrane the boundary has to precede the physical membrane for the latter to come about. This in turn implies that the positing is done by a being, which in the case of a single celled organism can only be that organism. This self-positing, though, has to be done in a temporally retroactive manner. As causality, then, the movement of causality is temporally retroactive, which is contradictory to the temporal priority of mechanistic causes, although it allows the apparent paradox of telic causality to be properly understood.

      Further, this is true of all systemic entities, which includes reality as a whole if understood as a unified entity, as a universe in any sense of the latter term. The result is that reality itself, as a universe, would have to have self-posited its temporal boundary retroactively. In the case of a cell within reality we can understand this retroactive positing in terms of the reality of temporality as bidirectional as differentiated from its appearance as unidirectional, since the cell has potential temporal perspectives outside itself. We cannot understand retroactive causality though without such an external perspective, which is problematic if it applies to reality as a whole as a universe. Applying it to reality as a whole would involve the causal origin of the singularity to be a temporally retroactive positing by reality itself, but this is impossible if the singularity is simultaneously understood as the origin of temporality. If it is not understood in this manner it creates the same infinite causal regress that theology removed from the understanding of apologetics by removing the tensed nature of the creator as the infinite horizon, simultaneously removing the possibility of a temporal boundary to reality. The problems this engenders can be seen in the apologetics of cosmologists, specifically the anthropological principle itself, and the further apologetic as expressed by Hawking, that since reality is so complex, varied and radically improbable, we shouldn’t be surprised that its origin as the singularity is even more complex and varied, and infinitely improbable. These apologetics are the same as those of pre-theological Christian apologetics, which implies that the nature of the creator-being, which is the apparent difference between modern cosmology and pre-theological Christian cosmology, is in fact falsely differentiated, since the creator-being of modern cosmology has the same aspects as the creator-being of Christian apologetics, including a rationale for its inherent complexity and improbability. Theology has regarded the creator as untensed since Duns Scotus and more definitively since Aquinas, and as untensed and simultaneously necessary is not within the realm of probability equations.

      (As an aside, I’ve often wondered how the majority of Roman Catholics, who are not theologically educated, simultaneously understand reality as temporally bounded, i.e. the moments of creation and end as real and not metaphorical, while not only hearing but repeating back in the weekly ritual of the Mass a definitive belief that the world is without beginning and end. From a theological perspective there is no issue, since beginning and end are understood as metaphor, not as reality. Reality is understood theologically as the self-expression of the infinite horizon of reality as the untensed origin of constant creation and destruction, and therefore itself infinite.)










Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s