Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU!obnoxio
From: obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Two Objections to Vacuum Genesis
Message-ID: <8706261209.AA04305@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 08:09:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: brahms.8706261209.AA04305
Posted: Fri Jun 26 08:09:35 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 08:50:10 EDT
References: <4080@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 48

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