This chapter addresses philosophical questions raised in contemporary work on cosmology. It provides an overview of the Standard Model for cosmology and argues that its deficiency in addressing theories regarding the very early universe can be resolved by introducing a dynamical phase of evolution that eliminates the need for a special initial state. The chapter also discusses recent hypotheses about dark matter and energy, issues that it relates to philosophical debates about underdetermination.

I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogonic model does not provide a plausible scientific explanation of our universe's initial low-entropy state.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: a) to explore the compatibility of Minkowski’s space-time representation of the Special theory of relativity with a dynamic conception of space-time; b) to locate its roots in invariant features - like entropic relations - of the propagation of signals in space-time. From its very beginning Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time was associated with a static view of reality, e.g. a block universe. Einstein added his influential voice to this conception when he wrote: ‘From a “happening” (...) in three-dimensional space, physics becomes (…) an “existence” in the four-dimensional “world”.’ (Einstein, Relativity 1920, 122) Yet it is by no means clear that Minkowski himself was a believer in the block universe. In his 1908 Cologne lecture on ‘Space and Time’ he speaks of a four-dimensional physics but concedes that a ‘necessary’ time order can be established at every world point. Although the conception of the block universe has gained much currency, an alternative view has been in circulation since the 1910s according to which the trajectories of particles constitute histories in space-time. (Robb 1914, Cunningham 1915, Carathéodorys 1924, Schlick 1917, Reichenbach 1924). (shrink)

This is an extensive review of recent work on the foundations of statistical mechanics.

I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogonic model does not provide a plausible scientific explanation of the past hypothesis (the thesis that our universe began in an extremely low-entropy state). I suggest that this counts as a welcomed result for those who adopt a Mill-Ramsey-Lewis best systems account of laws and maintain that the past hypothesis is a brute fact that is a non-dynamical law.

In a world awash in statistical patterns, should we conclude that the universe’s evolution or genesis is somehow subject to chance? I draw attention to alternatives that must be acknowledged if we are to have an adequate assessment of what chance the universe might have had.

When attempting to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various principles in their potential role of guiding the formulation of a theory of quantum gravity, it is crucial to distinguish between principles which are strongly supported by empirical data – either directly or indirectly – and principles which instead rely heavily on theoretical arguments for their justification. Principles in the latter category are not necessarily invalid, but their a priori foundational significance should be regarded with due caution. These remarks are (...) illustrated in terms of the current standard models of cosmology and particle physics, as well as their respective underlying theories, i.e., essentially general relativity and quantum theory. For instance, it is clear that both standard models are severely constrained by symmetry principles: an effective homogeneity and isotropy of the known universe on the largest scales in the case of cosmology and an underlying exact gauge symmetry of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions in the case of particle physics. However, in sharp contrast to the cosmological situation, where the relevant symmetry structure is more or less established directly on observational grounds, all known, nontrivial arguments for the “gauge principle” are purely theoretical. Similar remarks apply to the larger theoretical structures represented by general relativity and quantum theory, where – actual or potential – empirical principles, such as the equivalence principle or EPR-type nonlocality, should be clearly differentiated from theoretical ones, such as general covariance or renormalizability. It is argued that if history is to be of any guidance, the best chance to obtain the key structural features of a putative quantum gravity theory is by deducing them, in some form, from the appropriate empirical principles. Theoretical principles may still be useful however in formulating a concrete theory. It is subsequently argued that the appropriate empirical principles for deducing the key structural features of quantum gravity should at least include quantum nonlocality, irreducible indeterminacy, relativistic causality), the thermodynamic arrow of time, homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe on the largest scales. In each case, it is explained – when appropriate – how the principle in question could be implemented mathematically in a theory of quantum gravity, why it is considered to be of fundamental significance and also why contemporary accounts of it are insufficient. For instance, the high degree of uniformity observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background is usually regarded as theoretically problematic because of the existence of particle horizons, whereas the currently popular attempts to resolve this situation in terms of inflationary models are, for a number of reasons, less than satisfactory. However, rather than trying to account for the required empirical features dynamically, an arguably much more fruitful approach consists in attempting to account for these features directly, in the form of a lawlike initial condition within a theory of quantum gravity. (shrink)

Modern observations based on general relativity indicate that the spatial geometry of the expanding, large-scale Universe is very nearly Euclidean. This basic empirical fact is at the core of the so-called “flatness problem”, which is widely perceived to be a major outstanding problem of modern cosmology and as such forms one of the prime motivations behind inflationary models. An inspection of the literature and some further critical reflection however quickly reveals that the typical formulation of this putative problem is fraught (...) with questionable arguments and misconceptions and that it is moreover imperative to distinguish between different varieties of problem. It is shown that the observational fact that the large-scale Universe is so nearly flat is ultimately no more puzzling than similar “anthropic coincidences”, such as the specific values of the gravitational and electromagnetic coupling constants. In particular, there is no fine-tuning problem in connection to flatness of the kind usually argued for. The arguments regarding flatness and particle horizons typically found in cosmological discourses in fact address a mere single issue underlying the standard FLRW cosmologies, namely the extreme improbability of these models with respect to any “reasonable measure” on the “space of all spacetimes”. This issue may be expressed in different ways and a phase space formulation, due to Penrose, is presented here. A horizon problem only arises when additional assumptions—which are usually kept implicit and at any rate seem rather speculative—are made. (shrink)