NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/physics/18369

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:31:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David E. Brahm) writes:
>[e-mail] (Johan Wevers) wrote:
>> So [the Church] won't resist against the inflation model were the big
>> bang was created from an instable false vacuum, where no gods are needed
>> any more for the creation of the universe?
>
>[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) replied:
>> Please keep your particular religion out of science, it
>> has no place there.  Since there can always be a time *before* you
>> have any kind of false vacuum, bang or inflation, this discussion
>> simply *invites* consideration of initial conditions set up by 'gods'.
>
>The canonical view of relativistic cosmology is that there is *not* a time
>before the Big Bang; asking what came "before" is like asking what lies
>"north" of the North Pole, in that it makes an incorrect assumption about
>the range of a coordinate (time).  Furthermore, the fairly new field of
>quantum cosmology attempts to show how the existence of a 4D macroscopic
>universe is a "likely" "event" in a spacetime-less background, and that no
>"initial conditions" need be externally imposed.

     Um, like everyone else I enjoy getting 'something' out of
     'nothing'.  So explain to me how one does this, in even the most
     general terms (though specifics might help), without having anything?
     Even your words seem to be betraying you.  What are the
     characteristics of a 'spacetime-less' background?

     Simply saying that it is an inappropriate question of coordinates
     seems to beg the question of 'beingness', since you clearly seem
     to be saying that there is an initiating 'event'.  What is it
     an event 'in' or 'of'?  I find it difficult to believe that
     one can take everything out of what must be basically an act
     of creation (under present theory).

>Not that these questions have been satisfactorily answered yet, but the
>point is that even the most fundamental questions of existence are now
>being explored by science.  And if they can in fact be answered
>scientifically, where does that leave the Big Guy?  Historically science
>has continually encroached on territory once belonging to religion, and the
>gods have retreated from the trees, to the mountains, to the sky, to a
>nebulous omnipresence, to the First Cause, to ???  This trend alone is
>sufficient to convince me that "God" is a purely human creation.

     Certainly this is fine reasoning for you or me.  This is not, however,
     to say that this is fine reasoning for everyone.  Something to
     ponder is that generously, 'science' has existed as a major force
     for only several hundred years time independent of religion, and
     in the modern conception is really very young.  However,
     Judiaism is over 5000 years old, Christianity is nearly 2000 years
     old.  'Trends' and the misinterpretation thereof are clearly in the
     eye of the beholder.

                                  dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                          [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              [phone]