In a very important sense, there was nothing wrong with any of the historical of cosmologies, as they all were consistent with the observations as far as they went. There have been times where improvements have been made and old cosmologies set aside in favour of new one. Ands there have been times when alternative cosmologies offered that fit the observations or saved the appearances less than the foregoing.Notvacka wrote:It's not nonsense. Big Bang cosmology describes the history of the universe in a way that is consistent with the observational data at hand. So far, so good. The problem is that the earliest universe, before inflation, as proposed by the theory, can't contain or express our natural laws, leaving scientists with the metaphysical question of why there are laws in the first place, and why we have these particular laws, rather than some other laws.Kuznetzova wrote:Kuznetzova wrote:I happen to think Big Bang cosmology is flaky nonsense. Wonder if there are others. I expect philosophers should know the answers from science are dubious and flaky.
The multiverse is a metaphysical speculation, providing a possible answer, and as such it's philosophy, rather than science. There is nothing wrong with Big Bang cosmology, you just need to observe what part of the theory is actual science and what part is metaphysics.
For example Copernicus' system was much less efficient than Ptolemy's, adding over a dozen more epicycles to account for the anomalies that moving the sun to the centre of the universe caused, as he demanded perfect Aristotelian circles.
An alternate system which placed the inner planets around the sun whilst keeping the sun going round the earth helped a little was offered, but it was not until Kepler thought up ellipses that things got easier with the sun in the middle. But even Kepler was hampered with his obsession with Platonic solids which he had to set aside.
What we learn from, the process ought to be that any given cosmology is designed not only to 'save the appearances', but also to respect prevailing assumptions as much as possible. One major reason that the atheistic Hoyle resisted the BB in favour of the Steady State hypothesis, is the fact that he thought it more attractive to Christians.
The upshot of all this is that we ought to accept that for any given moment in history the prevailing cosmology is only a contingency based on the accommodation of observations, and an interpretation that respects the prevailing assumptions about the nature of the universe - both of which can change invalidating that cosmology.