🚀 go-pugleaf

	My argument against an infinite regress of Vacuum Genesis events
	simply doesn't have any particular formalism.  It is simply a 
	thought experiment based on the inherent properties of 
	the uncertainty principle.  Vacuum Genesis requires the occurance
	of an extremely unlikely event.  It is "excusable" as a theory
	if only one such occurence is needed - but an infinite number of 
	times?  

	For an infinite series to work, the link between successive states
	of the series must be sure, otherwise some point along the line a
	link will fail and the series will stop.  The link between successive
	states of vacuum genesis is an extremely unlikely event, thus
	an infinite series of vacuum genesis events just isn't a 
	satisfactory explanation.

	One other point concerning time.  Indeed, time between states 
	isn't defined in any clear way.  If each state is like our
	own universe (which is an assumption!) then presumably there can
	be an arbitrary (although necessarily finite) amount of time 
	before the next genesis event.  Unfortunately that won't help
	either, since in order for that condition to induce the infinite
	regress, it would be necessary for the probability of a genesis
	sized particle to be created in any universe over an arbitary
	time span to be one.  The uncertainty principle doesn't permit
	that conclusion. 

	Finally, I don't see any benefit in having a infinite regress of
	vacuum genesis events.  What does that explain that simply postulating
	a single event doesn't.  If one is going to postulate a vacuum that
	obeys all our physical laws, what is one more assumption?

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