I favour the cyclical universe model:Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:25 pmDevans99,devans99 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:24 am There is the argument that the universe was created by something (God?). If it was created by something, it is designed and a well made design is just as complex as needed for the task and no more. So when considering the universe, if you believe in a designer, then Occam's Razor is still applicable.
If you were to actually peruse my OP, i.e. take the trouble to understand it, you will realize that I'm proposing a criterion that is superior to Occam''s simplistiic Razor. which is all about minimizing the quantity of hypotheses. As a result we have two stupid hypotheses about the origin of the universe-- either an omnipotent all-powerful God did it, or some nonsensical "physical singularity" spontaneously appeared out of nowhere and blew up, giving us all the mass-energy in the universe plus the principles of interaction and 26 essential "constants" needed to make it work properly.
Both of these "everything from one" hypotheses are extremely complex, and if examined objectively, will be seen to be functionally identical.
Russell's criterion is closer to Aristotle's original in that it is attentive to the QUALITY of the hypotheses. If you actually understood the point of the OP we might have an intelligent conversation, which I would welcome.
- Where in the universe can you get all the matter/energy for the Big Bang?
- Only place is the Big Crunch
You quote Russell, 'Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.'. I have done so above; the Big Bang now is caused by a known entity (the Big Crunch). This model is also very Occam's Razor; a nice simple finite circle of time.