Sorry, BK & folx, for terminating last night’s post rather suddenly. It took a long time for me to prepare, and I was exhausted. So, it’s 3:14 am, and it’s Friday, and I’m ready to face my day. However, as I am up just a tad early before I go off to produce more money, I’m here at my computer to address some more of BK’s questions. So, onwards and upwards.

This is a very good question, one to which I have given ample thought before in the past myself. However, contrary to conventional thinking, there really is no essential conflict between the philosophy of Objectivism and the ‘Big Bang Theory’ - at least as I understand the theory. How can I say that? Am I ‘readjusting’ my philosophic position in order to agree with current scientific controversy? No, not at all. Observe:

First of all, you know what Objectivism states about the universe: that existence exists, and that only existence exists, and that existence is eternal, uncreated and indestructible. I have explained these positions at length in prior posts. Objectivism also rejects the notion that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, the position known as subjectivism, which I have also dealt with in prior posts at length. Thus, to this point, Objectivism has been shown to be a view of reality that considers existence as its primary.

Next, it is important to understand the ‘Big Bang Theory’, if we are going to determine whether or not there are conflicts between the philosophy of Objectivism and the propositions asserted by physicists and other scientists.

What does the ‘Big Bang Theory’ say?

According to astrophysicist Alan Guth, Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT, author of The Inflationary Universe, the ‘Big Bang Theory’ is summarized in the following manner:

(See The Case for the Big Bang, by Dr. Alan Guth. This is the description of the theory that I have always heard myself, in so many words).

What is this saying? Is this theory saying that existence found its source in non-existence? No. Is this theory stating that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness? No. Is this theory at variance in any way with the eternality of existence that Objectivism recognizes? No. In fact, there is no conflict here at all. Let me explain:

The ‘Big Bang Theory’ is not essentially a theory positing the origin of the universe qua universe as I see it. What the ‘Big Bang Theory’ offers is a theory of how the universe wound up in its present state. This is an entirely different statement than one of ‘origins’ in the sense of ‘where did it all come from existentially?’

According to the summary given by Professor Guth above, his theory does not posit the beginning of existence in any way, shape or form. His theory only addresses the state in which the totality of existence existed prior to its current "inflationary" expansion. He specifically identifies an "initial hot, dense state." An "initial hot, dense state" of what? Naturally, of existence. I.e., Professor Guth's theory, right or not, still begins with the fact of existence. This of course does not conflict with the statement "Existence is uncreated, eternal and indestructible". There is no essential conflict here at all. In fact, so far as I see it in the context I'm identifying here, if scientists like Professor Guth above can support their theory, then they in turn are confirming the statements Objectivists have been saying for several decades now: that existence exists.

The only result from the Big Banger’s elaboration (if I may call them that), is that the current state of the universe has changed. There is no statement that I can see that states that the universe as consisting of the entirety of existence has changed. What the Big Bangers are saying, is that all matter and energy that exists - which is now spread out throughout an expanding, ‘inflationary’ occupation of space, once existed as a single body - perhaps, they say, in the form of energy (which may be due to the tremendous temperatures the Big Bangers postulate as a necessary condition at this time).

IF, as the Big Bangers say, all the matter and energy of the universe were a single conglomerate, then existence still exists. The fact that the present shape of the universe is spread out over a large occupation of space is really rather moot. If the only ‘thing’ that existed was a tiny pea, without pod, then existence still exists. If all that existed were that tiny pea with no pod, this would not render invalid the premises of Objectivism - only no one would be ‘there’ to postulate them.

Similarly, as the Big Bangers argue, if the universe (which is defined as the sum of all existence) were all one big kernel waiting to ‘explode’, then existence exists - only that which exists has a different form.

This is really no different from the two elements - hydrogen and oxygen - and their natures interacting when they combine, and when they act separately. They still exist, whether they form a gas or whether they form water. Existence exists.

Anyway, I hope you find this satisfactory. I’m sure there are others present in the debate forum who are more qualified to comment on the ‘Big Bang Theory’ than am I. However, I take its essential argument, as summarized by one of its leading exponents, and explain how there is no essential conflict whatsoever with Objectivism.

Do I subscribe to the ‘Big Bang Theory’?

Actually, I think that the theory may have its merits, but I don’t really see its relevance to my life as an individual enjoying his life. No new knowledge will invalidate the fact that existence exists. This is a given. All knowledge statements, arguments, theories and hypotheses presuppose at their base the fact of existence. Although such theories as the ‘Big Bang’ are quite interesting, I do not share BK’s view that "this seems to be a significant if not crucial metaphysical issue." It’s not that crucial to me at all. As far as I am concerned, issues such as the ‘Big Bang’ are best regulated to the rubric ‘special interest’ or ‘stimulating diversion’, certainly not a ‘crucial imperative’ in my values-hierarchy. The simple fact of the matter is that I do exist, and the purpose I give to myself is to live, and to enjoy my life, as the sovereign being that I am. TO live this life of mine, and to enjoy it, I require no permission from the State, from ‘society or from ‘god’. I do not recognize anyone’s ‘right’ to one minute of my life, just as I have no ‘right’ to one minute of theirs.

Next up, my discussion of consciousness.

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________