Subj : The universe            4
To   : Bob Eyer
From : Jim Munden
Date : Thu Dec 21 2000 06:13 am

Hello!  May I contribute a few cents from my meager knowledge bank? :-)

-> >Yes, I understand that.  But the fact remains that if the universe
-> >did not always exist, if it came into being by something else,
-> >then it is perfectly valid to speak of that which came before it.
->
-> Coming into being of the universe by something else is merely
-> circumlocution for saying that something caused the universe to
-> exist.
->
-> But the concept of cause has no meaning unless it occurs in the
-> world of appearance, i.e.  in the universe.  Therefore no
-> empirical meaning can be attached to the question "What caused the
-> universe to exist?" There is no logically possible way to answer
-> such a question.
->
-> Therefore, the universe did not have a cause.  It had a beginning
-> which occurred some 15-20 billion years ago; and that beginning
-> was the Big Bang.
->
-> But it had no cause.  It began, simpliciter.

This is certainly not an original thought, but what if the "Big
Bang" and the current expansion are but phases in an ongoing oscillation
of energy converting to matter, and vice versa?  That is, an immense
ball of pure energy explodes and condenses ultimately into cold, heavy
matter.  Gravity eventually draws the matter back into a singularity,
gradually converting it into energy through friction and tidal forces
until it is once again the immense ball of pure energy, which explodes
and starts the cycle anew.  Whew!

I imagine the infinite void has always existed. The unanswerable
question, though, is "What was the origin, matter or energy, and what
initiated the explosion?". In the end, it seems we're stuck going
'round and 'round with the chicken-or-the-egg paradox, and all of our
various theologies and philosophies over the ages are merely attempts to
answer the paradox.

Cheers!
Jim

--- ViaMAIL!/WC v1.60d
 * Origin: Chowdanet! (401-331-5587) telnet://chowdanet.com  (1:323/120)

.