The two books also present different cosmologies. In Tau Zero, the growing monobloc with its hydrogen atmosphere and single orbiting spaceship is everything that exists and its oscillations are both beginningless and endless? This seems crude and mythical when contrasted with the account in Starfarers (see here):
energetic vacuum;
virtual particles;
quantum fluctuation;
random concentration;
explosive expansion not resulting from any earlier collapse;
similar processes in other space-time regions?
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I simply DON'T believe, in effect, in an eternal, uncreated universe. I can't believe that matter/energy, in effect, had no beginning. I still believe began at a moment of creation by God. That makes far more sense than a random universe somehow creating itself ex nihilo, out of nothing.
Sean
Sean, if I may:
Certum est quia impossibile- It is certain because it is impossible.
-Tertullian
Keith
Keith,
I know Tertullian said that but what did he mean by it?
Paul.
Kaor, Keith!
I'm very impressed that you quoted Tertullian! I have read some bits of his works, but only in translation.
Putting aside what TERTULLIAN meant, what can "It is certain because it is impossible" mean in THIS context? Do you mean it is certainly true that was not randomly created, ex nihilo, because it is impossible for matter/energy to be randomly self-created?
Sean
@ Paul: I wouldn't attempt to interpret his meaning from my 21st Century, Western, agnostic perspective.
@ Sean: Thank you. I learned that what is commonly attributed to him: "I believe because it is impossible." is an Enlightenment Era misstatement. What I believe is that belief (per: se) and empirically-based facts are often at odds, and it is hard to change people's beliefs from a purely fact-based approach:
We are not largely rational decision-makers. (https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/daniel-kahneman-on-bias/)
"If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow "
- Author Unknown
Post a Comment