From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 21:17:19 MST
Samantha writes
> gts wrote:
> > The ultimate question about the cause of the universe
> > cannot pass this test for meaning because it is not
> > possible to conceive of the universe not existing. To
> > have a conception of any kind, one must presuppose a
> > universe in which one can conceive.
>
> The question of why this bubble of space-time came into being or
> how is not at all unreasonable to ask. That we are dependent on
> its existence does not mean we cannot ask the question or work
> toward and possible find answer[s].
I agree with all the above points, but it seems to
me that this discussion and many like it tend to
confuse two meanings of the word "universe". One
meaning is *everything* and the other is what fell
out of the big bang.
This confusion occurred before in the 'teens of the
last century, when "universe" sometimes meant what
we later came to call our galaxy. It went away after
Hubble and others discovered the Milky Way. Linde
and many others (see Guth's great book "Inflation")
try to place what fell out of our big bang in a
wider context. Of course, no one knows too much
about that yet.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:38 MST