🚀 go-pugleaf

               I am rather disappointed with the response on my postings
          related to Vacuum Genesis.  It seemed to me to be a far more
          interesting and fertile ground for philosophical discussion than
          it turned out to be.  Since no one exactly came up with my two
          objections to Vacuum Genesis, let me get the cat out the of the
          bag.

               Physical objection:  Mathew P. Wiener came closest to
               describing this objection in his note of 6/22/87 when
               he reminded everyone that space-time itself was created
               in the Big Bang (according to current theory).  The
               fundemental premise of Vacuum Genesis is that a huge
               particle was created as a consequence of the
               uncertainty principle.  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?  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.  Since that
               universe needs to be explained, that line of reasoning
               looks very much like an infinite regress.

               Philosophical objection:  People did pick up of this
               one.  Some of the people who suggested it include Todd
               Moody, and Frank Adams.  The problem is that while
               Vacuum Genesis explains how the universe works it
               doesn't offer any reason WHY it works.  Specifically it
               doesn't explain why the our universe can be described
               by differential equations.  No physical explanation can
               explain why physics works.  According to Frank Adams,
               no explanation will ever do; other philosophers are
               somewhat more optimistic (myself included).

               I my opinion this theory is an example of how philosophers
          can contribute to science.  Neither of these objections are
          particularly difficult to come up with (although harder than I
          thought they were).  Yet, the objections would be very difficult
          to find for those emersed in physical theory.  Philosophy cannot
          afford to idlely watch the scientists at work.  Scientists do
          make philosophical mistakes, and it is up to philosophers to set
          the record straight.

                                             Edouard Lagache
                                             School of Education
                                             U.C. Berkeley
                                             lagache@violet.berkeley.edu