Re: TOBS: From nothing?

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:16:28 +0000, JaBrIoL wrote:

> All
> 
> 
>  Can experts now explain the origin of the universe? Many scientists,
> uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher
> intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of
> nothing. Does that sound reasonable to you? Such speculations usually
> involve some variation of a theory (inflationary universe model)
> conceived in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth. Yet, more recently, Dr. Guth
> admitted that his theory "does not explain how the universe arose from
> nothing." Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American
> article: "Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all
> began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology."
> 
> If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early
> development of our universe, should we not look elsewhere for an
> explanation? Indeed, you have valid reasons to consider some evidence
> that many have overlooked but that may give you real insight on this
> issue. The evidence includes the precise measurements of four
> fundamental forces that are responsible for all properties and changes
> affecting matter. At the mere mention of fundamental forces, some may
> hesitate, thinking, ‘That's solely for physicists.' Not so. The basic
> facts are worth considering because they affect us.

Let's compare two hypotheses:

a) We know that the world that we experience is far different from the
world that we know exists from the study of quantum mechanics and
cosmology.  The onset of our current Universe was a colossal event that is
probably beyond our capacity to comprehend, much in the way that quantum
entanglement is beyond our capacity to comprehend, though we can observe
it readily.  Trying to construct a detailed description of what happened
12-15 billion years ago by looking at the result is like trying to figure
out how the World Trade Center was built by looking at one piece of the
wreckage after its collapse.

b) Goddidit.

While I admit that b) has a certain elegant simplicity, it really doesn't
convey much information.  The reason that some people cannot accept a) is
that it lacks, and will always lack, that nice, neat, "just-so-story"
completeness that goes with b).

-- 
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)