- Battle of the Big Bang
The book The Battle of the Big Bang is about various scientific theories that attempt to explain how the universe came to be. When you hear this, you might be surprised and think to yourself: isn’t it clear how our universe came to be? First, there was the singularity, with infinite density, infinite temperature, and so on. Then came the Big Bang, where the singularity rapidly expanded — a phase called inflation. Roughly 13 billion years later, here we are.
But things are not as simple as they seem. Let’s first look at why people in the scientific community think otherwise.
Penrose and Hawking together formulated an influential theory, later known as the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorem, which supposedly proves an absolute beginning of time. But like any mathematical proof, it relies on several assumptions:
- Gravity is always attractive.
- The universe has three spatial dimensions and one time dimension, which we can measure with rulers and clocks.
- Time travel into the past is impossible.
- Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes the evolution of the universe at all scales.
The first assumption is challenged by cosmological observations, which show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Meanwhile, both Penrose and Hawking have questioned the second assumption, suggesting that the fundamentals of physics might not be the same as the world familiar to us. Penrose argues that, at the beginning, the universe was too hot to define rulers and clocks, while Hawking claims that time itself is emergent and not a fundamental aspect of physics.
Finally, the fourth assumption is almost certainly incorrect because it contradicts quantum theory, which governs how particles behave on the smallest scales.
In other words, the theorem that scientists relied on to argue for a beginning of the universe rests on several shaky assumptions.
If the universe didn’t start with a Big Bang, what then? The honest answer is: we don’t really know. There are many competing theories, each with advantages and disadvantages. Some believe the universe is cyclic, instead of a Big Bang, there is a “bounce.” Others propose the “Big Rip,” in which the universe tears itself apart and is reborn. Some theories suggest the universe is past- and future-eternal. Others propose that it arose through a process of cosmic natural selection, or that it emerged through quantum tunneling from literally nothing. And there are many more possibilities.
Personally, aesthetically, I like the ekpyrotic model best. Not only is it poetic, it also pays homage to the first philosophers, such as the Stoics and Heraclitus, who proposed a similarly named model:
“As a consequence of this, so our school believes — though it used to be said that Panaetius questioned the doctrine — there will ultimately occur a conflagration of the whole world. When the moisture has been used up, neither can the earth be nourished nor will the air continue to flow, being unable to rise upward after it has drunk up all the water. Thus nothing will remain but fire, by which, as a living being and a god, once again a new world may be created and the ordered universe be restored as before.” — Cicero, De Natura Deorum II (section 118)
But what exactly is this model, in the words of the book?
“In the ekpyrotic model, two high-dimensional branes collide. The energy of the collision becomes matter and radiation, triggering our Big Bang. In phase A, the branes of a cold, diluted universe approach each other; in phase B, they collide and heat up; in phase C, they expand away from each other. […] This model truly inherits the spirit of the original ekpyrotic universe of the ancient Stoic philosophers. It would be cyclic, repeating endlessly as the branes smashed into each other, creating an inferno to cleanse the universe.”
Though I dislike its reliance on string theory — as Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow famously said, string theorists’ work is so removed from reality that it should be compared to medieval theologians pondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin — the model is compelling aesthetically.
But just because I like the story doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m only saying that if one of our stories about how the universe came to be turns out to be correct, I hope it’s this one.
Why does it matter how exactly the universe came to be? Or, in the words of the author: “Do we really need a story — yet another creation myth?”
In both religion and philosophy, we often make arguments that rely on implicit assumptions about how our universe functions and how it began. I want to mention two examples.
The first is the fine-tuning argument, which goes like this:
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- Therefore, it is due to design.
This argument relies on the uniqueness of our universe. But this assumption is only weakly supported under the Big Bang model. For example, if our universe were produced through cosmic natural selection, and our human living conditions were a byproduct, it would be unsurprising that life-supporting conditions exist. If we instead believe in inflationary theory, the existence of a multiverse is a generic prediction i.e. most inflation-based models predict a multiverse. In a cyclic universe, what makes us unique if each cycle is a “retry”? In both cyclic and multiverse theories, a universe capable of supporting humans is bound to happen eventually.
Proof: if one has infinite tries, everything that can happen will happen
$$ P(E) = p > 0 $$<p>Let (E) be an arbitrary event of a single trial.</p>
Suppose the trials are independent. Let (A_n) be the event that (E) occurs at least once in the first (n) trials. By independence:
$$ P(A_n^c) = (1 - p)^n $$Hence:
$$ P(A_n) = 1 - P(A_n^c) = 1 - (1 - p)^n \leq 1 - (e^{-p})^n = 1 - e^{-pn} \to^{n \to \infty} 1 - 0 = 1 $$Thus, with infinitely many trials, the probability of (E) occurring at least once converges to \(1\).
The second is the cosmological argument, which goes like this:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This argument relies on the Big Bang singularity proving a beginning of time — which many physicists deny. It is also unclear whether it makes sense to speak of causation at the beginning of the universe, since causality might be an emergent property, absent at fundamental scales. Moreover, there are models of past-eternal inflation in which premise (2) would be false.
A related type of argument is infinite regress, in which some chain of causes is claimed to extend infinitely into the past, and is therefore rejected. But as we have seen, there are plausible models of past-eternal universes, where infinite regress is not only possible, but natural.
Lastly, how the universe came to be is part of the story of us humans: how we see ourselves and understand our place in the world. We do not live in a purely objective, fact-based world; we live and breathe in stories. And how the universe came to be is probably the biggest and greatest story of them all.
So, to answer the question: why does the beginning of the universe matter? Not only do many philosophical arguments depend on how this question is answered, but it is also an integral part of human identity.
- Ichi the Killer (2001)
Alternative title: The Crying Killer
This is a splatter movie: very brutal, full of gore, torture, and an obsession with sadism and masochism. If I had to describe it in two words, it would be fucked up.
The film has some really cool shots: fast, erratic camera movements, often sped up and distorted. There’s rarely a static camera; it often feels like we’re a person following the main characters through their madness.
It also has some really interesting sound design and songs: heavy drum patterns that almost verge on DnB, but only in the percussion. The constant rhythmic repetition reminds me a bit of krautrock and even of the book On Mysticism: The Experience of Ecstasy.
This is exactly the kind of movie I love — strange, avant-garde, weird, fucked up, and pushing boundaries. 8/10.
Spoiler ahead
Our protagonist, Ichi, loves to hurt people. He takes pleasure in seeing others in pain and misery. Was he always like this, or did it develop over time? We don’t know. What we do know is that back in school, he was bullied, and a girl once saved him. The bullies then raped her as punishment, while Ichi was frozen and could do nothing but watch. He hated himself for it — but not for the reason you might think. He didn’t hate himself because he couldn’t save her, but because he wasn’t the one who raped her.
It’s unclear if this event was the catalyst for his sadistic tendencies or if it merely revealed them. There’s another layer to it too: while he loves to hurt and kill, he also hates himself for it. Each kill becomes a strange mix of pain and pleasure — he kills and cries at the same time, often while having an erection. He wants to kill but also doesn’t want to. After every murder he feels miserable, yet he still yearns for the next one.
This inner conflict is exploited by the yakuza, who manipulate him by telling him his targets resemble his old bullies — “Look, this one’s bald like the guy from your class,” or “This one has the same hair as the one who bullied you.” Ichi becomes trapped in a cycle of proving he’s not the weak boy he once was — a cycle of pain, pleasure, and broken morality.
Maybe the whole movie is a metaphor for the suppressed feelings of bullied people in Japan: an aesthetic release of their trauma, a fantasy of strength and revenge that still carries the shadow of their weaker self.
“You were weak and couldn’t help her. But now you’re strong enough to take anyone down. It’s time for revenge.”
The irony, of course, is that the whole “Ichi’s bully” story was made up.
Also… why did that guy kill himself at the end?
- Lake
- Hopper
- Primal Fear (1996)
Good, straightforward movie until the ending, which recontextualizes everything. 7/10.
If you want justice go to a whorehouse. If you want to get fucked, go to court.