rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (06/27/87)
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) >> 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? > >Guth and co-workers have suggested an alternative origin for vacuum >genesis, by a process of continuous creation of disjoint universes. > >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. It seems to me that when you have several theories, each of which admits of infinite regress (why should a proto-universe produce only one like ours, or perhaps a number of different types?), Occam's razor is the preferred arbiter. I don't think that physics theories are meant to explain how the universe ACTUALLY DID originate, so much as to explain how it COULD HAVE originated in accordance with known theory and observations. So, in an immediate sense, since vacuum genesis offers such an explanation, I'm willing to accept it as the best theory going so far. In an ultimate sense, I doubt that any cosmological explanation can avoid infinite regress. And so, I can either accept them all as equally plausible, or reject them all as equally meaningless. -bob.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/02/87)
In article <22236@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) writes: >In an ultimate sense, I doubt that any cosmological explanation can avoid >infinite regress. And so, I can either accept them all as equally plausible, >or reject them all as equally meaningless. -bob. Well, there is the alternative of saying "that's all there is, there is no explanation for this, it's just there" at some point. This leaves you in much the same state you started in, of course. There is also the possibility of a *potentially* infinite regress. At each step, you can find a deeper explanation; but there is no way to tie it all up in ball and generalize (you can't say: "each level is based on the preceding level in the following way: ..."). This possiblity is called job security for cosmologists. It seems more likely to me than some more fully explicatable regress. -- Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108