"The primordial element, with which creation presumably began, is hydrogen-1, a single proton accompanied by a single electron." (p. 350)
This paragraph proceeds to explain that:
"To this day, [hydrogen-1] comprises the overwhelming bulk of matter in the universe." (ibid.);
vast masses of hydrogen-1 condensed into increasingly hot globes, i.e., stars, where atoms combined into heavier elements;
novae and red giants spread these heavier elements through space;
later stars generated when these elements condensed produced planets with life and consciousness.
This understanding has become our modern cosmogony. Perhaps the creation myth closest to a scientific understanding was the Norse story of a void in which interaction between the extreme but opposed forces of heat and cold generated life, including the first giants and gods. Impersonal material forces preceded consciousness, then the gods fashioned the world that we know from the body of a giant: the sky from his skull; mountains from his bones; oceans from his blood etc.
I want to compare this passage with a reference to "ylem" in James Blish's Cities In Flight. However, we find not only that we have already quoted the Blish passage but also that Anderson too refers to "ylem." See here.
Two ultimate cosmic sf writers.
12 comments:
Yup. The scientific version is -impersonal- though, not centered on human beings.
It also begs the question of why natural law is as it is -- if it were only a little different, we wouldn't exist.
I'm of the school of thought that says the universe is cyclical (which current cutting-edge physics supports) and secondly that if the laws of nature were different, we wouldn't be here, so...
Very recently, I read that, at that time, cosmic expansion was thought to be so fast, even accelerating because of dark energy, that gravitation would never counteract it.
I told a street Evangelical about the several quantities like G and E in E=MCsquared which, if they were even slightly different, would make life impossible. I tried to show her that I was open to all the evidence and willing to consider every option. She just seized on it as confirming her belief in a Creator. Discussion stopped.
Kaor, to Both!
All of which leads me to believe the creation of that hydrogen-1 was when God created the universe.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A quantum fluctuation in the vacuum like the meeting of heat and cold in the Ginnungagap.
Paul.
Yes, that was the general consensus, but recent measurements show that expansion is slowing down much faster than was previously thought. They don't know why, but it is. That means recontraction into a monobloc. Mind you, the next universe might have very different natural laws.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I don't agree either quantum fluctuations or contractions into another monobloc contradicts belief in a First Cause, God.
Mr. Stirling: Anderson's TAU ZERO is vindicated! It does make me wonder if natural laws in the next universe will be different. Anderson had the crew of the "Leonora Christine" arriving in a new universe with the same natural laws we can observe now.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The argument for a First Cause is invalid.
Future measurements might contradict current conclusions.
Paul.
Paul: perfectly possible, yes.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Arguments against God being real, refused.
Mr. Stirling: I've gotten so used to accepting that the cosmology of TAU ZERO was obsolete that it's very interesting to know it might not be! I also wonder how different natural laws might be in the next if Hydrogen-1 is not its basic building block.
Ad astrra! Sean
Sean,
You cannot just say "refused" and leave it at that! Pro-theistic arguments are at best contested. You cannot just state that they are valid and leave it to sceptics to respond to that. You are obliged to present an argument.
This is the argument to a First Cause as I was taught it at school, as I read it in an apologetics text book, as I have seen it discussed in a book on the philosophy of religion and as I have previously summarized it and discussed at least once, if not twice, in a combox on this blog (It is a summary or paraphrase of Aquinas):
Every event has a cause.
An infinite regress is impossible.
Therefore, there must have been a First Cause, which all men call God.
Comments:
Both premises must be proved.
There are uncaused events in quantum mechanics.
If every event is caused by an earlier event, then:
the two premises contradict each other;
an infinite regress is not only possible but actual;
there cannot have been a First Cause which, in any case, would be a past event, not an eternal person.
I am prepared to discuss this but I should not have to state the argument myself before I reply to it!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still say "refuse," because your merely philosophical views are not going to convince me, not when other philosophers can make equally convincing arguments against your views. I still conclude that philosophy alone cannot definitively resolve such questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Refuse" is an absurd response. We need discussion, not just the claim that other philosophers make equally convincing arguments the other way. I deny that. Show me some "equally convincing arguments."
If you do show me some arguments, then I will consider and respond to them just as I have considered and responded to that First Cause argument but I cannot respond to the claim that there are some arguments out there somewhere. Philosophy can resolve philosophical arguments.
I am not trying definitively to resolve such questions by philosophy alone but I am trying to be philosophically as clear as possible. If theistic claims are based not on argumentation alone but either on alleged revelation or on religious experience, then we can discuss that too. I acknowledge that people apprehend awesomeness, intuit oneness and project visions: the three kinds of religious experience.
Paul.
Post a Comment