Our third episode discusses the concept of the universe and some of the philosophical implications of the “Big Bang”.
Parts of the podcast audio might not quite as clear in some parts as we might like, for which we apologize. Please do listen to the episode anyway, or at least read the transcript provided below.
[Please note that this may not exactly match the audio. However, there should be no significant differences].
Welcome to episode three of the Metaphysics of Physics podcast. I am Dwayne Davies, your host, philosopher in chief, writer and guide through the hallowed halls of the philosophy of science.
And I am Ashna your co-host and fellow guide. Thanks for tuning in everyone!
With this show, we are fighting for a more rational world, mostly by looking through the lens of the philosophy of science. We will raise awareness of issues within the philosophy of science and present alternative and rational approaches.
Yes, and today we are going to briefly discuss the concept “universe”, the Big Bang and some of the philosophical issues surrounding these two ideas.
You may want to subscribe via iTunes or one of our other subscription methods. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter. You can do all of this from the shownotes or the media player on the website, at metaphysicsofphysics.com.
Ok, let’s get into it.
What is the Big Bang? It is a physics theory which explains the origin of the universe as we know it.
It should be noted that despite the name of the theory, the theory does not assert that there was an explosion which created the universe. Rather, it refers to a rapid expansion. A rapid expansion of what? Rapid expansion from something known as a singularity.
This singularity is supposed to be a point of infinite density, isn’t it? Isn’t that just nonsense? What does it mean to have infinite density? Presumably that this point had no volume?
Indeed. But, we are not going to dwell on this very much. We are not here to discuss the physics of the Big Bang.
Yeah, so let’s get started with the concept of existence…
Existence exists. With that statement, I have stated the most fundamental fact that there is. Upon this statement, all cognition depends.
Now, suppose that I was to assert that there is nothing that exists. The very fact that this statement can be made, proves that something exists to make the statement. The axiom of existence is completely immune to refutation and any attempt to refute it, merely shows that it is true.
There is no alternative to this basic fact. Entities exist, and there is no way to imagine any alternative. Even were you to attempt to imagine an allegedly empty void of nothingness, the supposed perception of it requires an entity to perceive it, and something to perceive.
There is no way to perceive or think about non-existence. To perceive is to perceive something. That which does not exist cannot be perceived. There is no way to imagine non-existence. To think is to think about something.