Use in theology
Vilenkin has also written about the religious significance of the BGV theorem. In October 2015, Vilenkin responded to arguments made by theist William Lane Craig and the New Atheism movement regarding the existence of God. Vilenkin stated "What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed."[7] Regarding the BGV theorem itself, Vilenkin told Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately."
False vacuum decay via bubble formation in ferromagnetic superfluids
The extension to quantum field theory and quantum many-body systems has attracted significant interest in the context of statistical physics, protein folding and cosmology, for which thermal and quantum fluctuations are expected to trigger the transition from the metastable state (false vacuum) to the ground state (true vacuum) through the probabilistic nucleation of spatially localized bubbles.
One of the most well known example in "modern" graduate level science of fallacious logic is the Kalam cosmological argument (an argument for the existence of a deity that created our Universe) the second one is very likely the Pascal’s wager. The premise of the Kalam cosmological argument, «Whatever begins has a cause», may be kinda logic for an undergraduate or scientifically illiterate individual or a non-professional physicist. But for professionals postgraduate level physicists this is proven mathematically and experimentally wrong at least since the years 11950 (we will see the proofs in the section of Wave Quantum Physics page 4469 and Quantum Gravity page 5743 much later in this book). So anyone using this argument as a logical claim just provide evidence for his ignorance of modern physics® and also of logics itself (as the conclusion is in the premise... facepalm). And furthermore as we have also seen during our introduction of this book, a claim or a quote is at maximum an evidence of level 02 (see page 55
(page suivante pour la preuve ontologique de Godel)
Opera Magistris
Tl speculative Quantum Causal Models created so far until year 12017 (holocene calendar) have failed to find a deterministic causality to some Quantum effects that have well explained probabilistic behaviours! Thus it follows that the Kalam cosmological argument fails because its first premise fails (but it also fails for the reason as we have already seen during our study of Logic that if in case there is a premise, either implicit or explicit, that is logically equivalent to the conclusion then the reasoning is said to be "circular". In many cases, circularity is a problem and we name such circularity a "vicious circularity".
vii Stenger asked Alexander Vilenkin the following question: «Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning ?». Alexander Vilenkin replied: «No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.»
Alexander Vilenkin has also written about the religious significance of the BGV theorem. In October 12015 (holocene calendar), Alexander Vilenkin responded to arguments made by theist William Lane Craig and the New Atheism movement regarding the existence of God. Alexander Vilenkin stated «What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed.» (see [448]).
Furthermore the original paper (see [46]) itself suggest possible prior cosmologies: «What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton.»
Alan Guth has also gone on record claiming he believes the universe (i.e. the Cosmos) to be eternal.
Also, Arvind Borde has developed models of infinite universes as well as models of universe’s with defined physics beyond the geodesic boundary. Literally none of the three original authors themselves believes that their theorem proves that the Universe has a beginning, because it doesn’t. It shows that the expansion of the Universe has a beginning, not the entirety of the Cosmos itself.
