THE BIG BANG THEORY

ON A PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATION

OF THE ASTRONOMICAL

BIG BANG THEORY

.

.

.

The most revolting misfortune of rational thought is when a major scientific discovery becomes, because of certain of its superficial characteristics, an instrument of legitimization for the most rotten hackneyed religious incoherences. I remember, about thirty years ago, when the first pictures of the bio-energetic field that surrounds our body started to circulate, a stupid catholic said to me : “Doesn’t it look like a spiritual stream emerging out of us ?” My answer had been: “Rather a sparkling material undulation, you Donkey, the mystical myth or aura is definitely dead with these pictures, sit on that and spin…”

The brief observations that I will make here about the astronomical Big Bang Theory are only another episode of that never-ceasing struggle of rationality against lunacy. These observations being not astronomical but strictly philosophical, I will have first to briefly clarify the distinction between two major philosophical doctrines : ONTOLOGY and GNOSEOLOGY.

ONTOLOGY (The doctrine of Being): Ontology is the highest level of philosophical generalization that includes Cosmology and Humankind History and addresses in the same time what they have in common and how they interconnect as objective realities. The questions asked by ontology are : What is it to be ? What to exist is about ? What are we ?

GNOSEOLOGY (The doctrine of Knowledge): Gnoseology is also a high level of generalization that includes Cosmology and Humankind history and addresses in the same time how we interconnect them and what we find in common to them when we THINK, DISCOVER or INVESTIGATE them. The questions asked by gnoseology are : What is it to know ? What to think is about ? What is the mind ?

Ontology and Gnoseology intertwine each other. Because of their fundamental philosophical status, each of these two doctrines potentially includes the other. What we are determines what we know. But what we know sets the limits of what existence is, for us. These two doctrines will complete each other and are actually united.

Let’s drop that for now and inquire into our present cosmological problem. My purpose here is to discuss the main philosophical implication of the Big Bang Theory. I will then assume the scientific accuracy of that theory. Consequently, readers who do not buy the Big Bang Theory for whatever reason can kiss my ass goodbye right now and turn the page. For the others, we can remind that currently astronomical science claims that the “universe” is presently expanding and is quite likely to have “started” in some sort of original Bang. In a jiffy, Religion -that never misses a chance to recycle its fucking garbages- takes the opportunity to reintroduce the narrow and childish concept of CREATION right here. The Bang would be some sort of initial “act of God”.

We are back to the type of problem of religious parasitism on science I experienced thirty years ago with some catholic acquaintance of mine already mentioned. The problem is touchy : how can philosophy scrap the traditional idea of creation without refusing the scientific discovery of the Big Bang, a hypothesis which is quite likely to be ontologically accurate? Another way to ask the question: how can we demonstrate that, despite all appearances, the scientific Big Bang Theory does not confirm the superstitious belief in creation stuck in so many shitty minds ?

We will first stay cool, and ground ourselves in the following aphorism of Francis Bacon:

“The subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the subtlety of the senses and understanding; so that all those specious meditations, speculations, and glosses in which men indulge are quite from the purpose, only there is no one by to observe it.” (Bacon 1960 : 41 – published in 1620)

The interpenetration of ontology (i.e. the being of nature) and gnoseology (i.e. our knowledge of it) as described by Bacon is what will help us to comb the myth of creation out of the Big Bang Theory. If we think the Universe in that philosophical perspective, it is necessarily separated in two parts:

1-       The part of the Universe we KNOW about. we will call this one : COSMOS

2-       The part of the Universe that objectively EXISTS or EXISTED and we do not know about. We will call this one the UNKNOWN PART (of the Universe).

If we put this in figure, or… in painting :

COSMOS is in blue. UNKNOWN PART is in… well… unknown color (greyish pink, pinkish grey, you name it). This, here, is a purely philosophical presentation of the cosmological problem. The subdivision presented on that figure is purely ontological/gnoseological. We simply apply to Cosmology the materialist claim that a part of existence is necessarily external to our consciousness. The doctrine of Being and the doctrine of Knowledge are working together here, in the line of Bacon (and several other materialist thinkers).

This being said, what we state here is simply this : THE BIG BANG IS NOT THE STARTING POINT OF ALL THE UNIVERSE BUT ONLY THE STARTING POINT OF COSMOS. The huge unknown part of the Universe is actually unknown in space and time. This means that there was a moment of the Universe that has been there but we know nothing about it. And seemingly, our present stage of knowledge of Cosmos, as far as its generation in time is concerned, starts with a Bang. The Bang though was not the beginning of everything but of everything WE KNOW. Consequently, to call it “creation” corresponds exactly to the type of asshole’s speculation Bacon is referring to. The claim of materialist philosophy is that there was complex ensembles of matter in motion long before the Bang, and that astronomists will eventually confirm that philosophical extrapolation by the discovery of “pre-Bang particles” or “pre-Bang undulations”.

Like the majority of religious superstitions of whatever confession, the myth of creation is an arrogant anthropocentric nonsense. The religious part of Humankind is too narrow-minded and/or too coward to face the pure reality of an endless uncreated material Universe with no beginning whatsoever. Because the Universe is inevitably radically different from his so limited little self, the arrogant mystical human pigmy projected his own image in the sky and hid himself under the imaginary law of a phantasmagoria humanlike megadaddy, supposed to have created the mountains he cannot climb and the seas he cannot cross, like we build latrines in our backyard! Let Galileo describe, more politely than I would, the intellectual situation of the believers :

“Such people remind me of that sculptor who, having transformed a huge block of marble into the image of a Hercules or a thundering Jove, I forget which, and having with consummate art made it so lifelike and fierce that it moved everyone with terror who beheld it, he himself began to be afraid, though all its vivacity and power were the work of his own hands; and his terror was such that he no longer dare affront it with his mallet and chisel.” (Galileo 1967 : 111 – published in 1629)

My conclusion to these observations coldly formulates itself as follows: You, inept GodAssLickers and MotherMaryfuckers, are totally free to ruminate your irrational childishness within the paddock of your grotesque church/mosque/synagogue, if it is your wish, but, for christ’s (namely nobody’s) sake, leave sciences (which are quite able to talk rubbish by themselves without your help) out of your pathetic tomfooleries.

The Universe is uncreated. God is a myth. There is no spiritual consequence whatsoever to the Big Bang Theory.

.

.

.

REFERENCES:

Bacon, F.  (1960), The New Organon and Related Writings, New York, Macmillan/ Library of Liberal Arts, 292p.

Galileo, G.  (1967), Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -Ptolemaic & Copernican, Berkeley, University of California Press, 496p.

2 Responses to “THE BIG BANG THEORY”

  1. dilip Says:

    is our organs capable to see the universe as it is?

  2. Simon Packer Says:

    So everything accidentally made itself out of nothing, and meaning is meaningless, including your ramblings. Or, to adopt another approach, assuming rationality and analysis are legitimate and real, where did the radiation energy required by the Big bang come from? And where did the mathematical ‘fabric’ required by the theory come from? Anyway, at least I like Yogi Berra!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.