lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (06/24/87)
I am rather disappointed with the response on my postings
related to Vacuum Genesis. It seemed to me to be a far more
interesting and fertile ground for philosophical discussion than
it turned out to be. Since no one exactly came up with my two
objections to Vacuum Genesis, let me get the cat out the of the
bag.
Physical objection: Mathew P. Wiener came closest to
describing this objection in his note of 6/22/87 when
he reminded everyone that space-time itself was created
in the Big Bang (according to current theory). The
fundemental premise of Vacuum Genesis is that a huge
particle was created as a consequence of the
uncertainty principle. However, the uncertainty
principle is only known to be true of our universe (and
space-time). For Vacuum Genesis to work, that other
universe would also have to support the uncertainty
principle - why should it? All the physical
information what our theories are based on are data
collected in our universe (and space-time). In effect
Vacuum Genesis posuluates another universe just like
ours in order to explain our universe. Since that
universe needs to be explained, that line of reasoning
looks very much like an infinite regress.
Philosophical objection: People did pick up of this
one. Some of the people who suggested it include Todd
Moody, and Frank Adams. The problem is that while
Vacuum Genesis explains how the universe works it
doesn't offer any reason WHY it works. Specifically it
doesn't explain why the our universe can be described
by differential equations. No physical explanation can
explain why physics works. According to Frank Adams,
no explanation will ever do; other philosophers are
somewhat more optimistic (myself included).
I my opinion this theory is an example of how philosophers
can contribute to science. Neither of these objections are
particularly difficult to come up with (although harder than I
thought they were). Yet, the objections would be very difficult
to find for those emersed in physical theory. Philosophy cannot
afford to idlely watch the scientists at work. Scientists do
make philosophical mistakes, and it is up to philosophers to set
the record straight.
Edouard Lagache
School of Education
U.C. Berkeley
lagache@violet.berkeley.eduobnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/26/87)
In article <4080@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, lagache@violet (Edouard Lagache) writes about the "physical objection" to Vacuum Genesis. It looked more like a philosophical objection to me, but anyway... > However, the uncertainty > principle is only known to be true of our universe (and > space-time). For Vacuum Genesis to work, that other > universe would also have to support the uncertainty > principle - why should it? "that other universe" is equally nebulous. Standard formulations--if that phrase has meaning yet--make it out as the vacuum that modern phys- icists have been studying all along. There is no denying the fact that cosmologists extrapolate more than any other breed of scientist--to the point that some physicists have called the latest interest in inflationary theories "metaphysical". (Interestingly, the most extreme extrapolation in the other direc- tion--superstrings, has also been attacked on similar grounds. And the two theories are probably linked.) Guth and co-workers have suggested an alternative origin for vacuum genesis, by a process of continuous creation of disjoint universes. > All the physical > information what our theories are based on are data > collected in our universe (and space-time). In effect > Vacuum Genesis posuluates another universe just like > ours in order to explain our universe. Perhaps Guth's theory was what you had in mind? It was developed out of curiosity whether the conditions of the Big Bang could be met in our *current* universe--and if the answer is yes, then obviously the possibility that our Big Bang happened under similar circumstances arises. > Since that > universe needs to be explained, that line of reasoning > looks very much like an infinite regress. Indeed it does. So what's wrong with an infinite regress? I think I asked that question before, and I don't recall any answers, let alone a satisfactory one. Personally I find infinite regresses quite satisfactory, if handled correctly. They DO enable the worm to catch its tail in this case. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/02/87)
In article <8706261209.AA04305@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <4080@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, lagache@violet (Edouard Lagache) >> looks very much like an infinite regress. >Indeed it does. So what's wrong with an infinite regress? I don't know. What is wrong with an infinite regress? -- Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108