Today we are going to discuss the book “A Rational Cosmology”. This is part one of a series. You can download the book for free here.
Click here to download the PDF transcript. This episode’s transcript has no illustrations.
[Editorial: Please note that this may not exactly match the audio. However, there should be no significant differences.]
Metaphysics of Physics is the much needed and crucial voice of reason in the philosophy of science, rarely found anywhere else in the world today. We are equipped with the fundamental principles of a rational philosophy that gives us the edge, may make us misfits in the mainstream sciences but also attracts rational minds to our community.
With this show, we are fighting for a more rational world, mostly by looking through the lens of the philosophy of science. We raise awareness of issues within the philosophy of science and present alternative and rational approaches.
You can find all the episodes, transcripts, subscription options and more on the website at metaphysicsofphysics.com.
Hi everyone! This is episode seventeen of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast and I am Ashna, your host and guide through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science. Thanks for tuning in!
Today we are going to discuss the book “A Rational Cosmology” by Gennady Stolyarov II. This is part one of a series.
What is this book and why are we talking about it? Is it as rational as it claims to be?
All good questions and today we will answer the first two and start to answer whether or not it is as rational as it claims to be.
Okay, so let’s dive in.
What Is This Book About?
Well, the title gives a not so subtle clue. It is a book intended to present a rational cosmology.
Lets quote the author himself:
“As constructive alternatives to these fallacies, A Rational Cosmology presents objective, absolute, rationally grounded views of terms such as universe, matter, volume, space, time, motion, sound, light, forces, fields, and even the higher-order concepts of life, consciousness, and volition. The result is a system verified by ubiquitous observation and common sense, the underpinnings of objective science which demonstrate a knowable, fathomable reality and set the stage for unfettered progress, confidence in reason, and full-scale logical investigation of just about everything existence has to offer.” – http://rationalargumentator.com/rc.html
[Editorial: What are “these” fallacies? Well, we will soon provide examples of the kinds of fallacies the author has in mind.]
Before we go further, what is cosmology?
Wikipedia defines cosmology as:
“Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos “world” and -λογία, -logia “study of”) is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.” – Wikipedia article on cosmology.
The universe is simply “the totality of all things that exist. It does not make sense to say it has an origin.
The universe is not a thing that can have an origin. It is simply “all the things that exist”. In no sense does this have an origin. What could be the origin of “everything that exists”?
Something outside of existence? No. Something before anything existed? No.
Nor does “everything that exists” evolve. The concept of change does not apply to the concept “universe”. So, it cannot be said to be evolving.
The concept “universe” is a pretty simple one and there is not a lot to discuss.
In episode three, we discussed the “configuration of the universe”. This simply refers to the various relationships between things that exist. This is the kind of “configuration” cosmology might study.
Suppose that we consider various things like galaxies, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets and the like. This includes most of the things that exist.
And we then consider the various relationships between them. That combination, on a large-scale, is what we mean.
For instance, existence, in general, seems to be arranged as a series of stars, solar systems, galaxies. And various things in between. That is one “configuration” of existents. It need not be the only “configuration”.
Perhaps before the “Big Bang”, things were arranged in some other configuration. This is the kind of “evolution” cosmology might validly study. Although, “change” would be a better word than “evolution”.
I don’t really think that there is a lot for us to discuss here. At least not on Metaphysics of Physics. This is not an astronomy show. And philosophically speaking, cosmology does not give us much to talk about.