Jon, There is a tradition through neoPlatonist, medieval Arabic thought and Leibniz through more recently to various physicists that is in tune with the paper I posted about. The methodology is fairly well established. It is the results of the paper that are of concern.
Though I originally posted it to reflect two discussions on the list previously, the origin of time and the nature of information. John From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: March 31, 2015 9:00 PM To: John Collier Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu) Subject: Re: Article on origin of the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists John, List, Ontological questions are always interesting but aside from the weak bonds of some putative anthropic principle they don't bear that heavily on methodological questions. Whether we view the Big Bang as a singular haecceity, a spontaneous occurrence, or simply inexplicable, our current beliefs about the origin of the universe have arisen through applications of the inquiry process progressing through the millennia from primitive to fully scientific forms. Those beliefs may change tomorrow afternoon or a hundred years from now as new evidence pops up or accumulates over time but if and when they do it will be through further applications of the same tradition of inquiry. Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:47 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: Dear lists, The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites, among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches that we have argued for. It also brings together other related material from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation, and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The authors give this condition as that the universe originated in a singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no information. Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it from bit”, used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches of Quantum Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in particular), according to which energy and matter are incidental, and information (distinctness) is fundamental. The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo Maya Lincoln Electronic Address: maya.linc...@processgene.com<mailto:maya.linc...@processgene.com> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel Avi Wasser Electronic Address: awas...@research.haifa.ac.il<mailto:awas...@research.haifa.ac.il> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel It can be found online with a good search engine. The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than contingent. Cheers, John John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041 http://web.ncf.ca/collier
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
