New cyclic model of universe creation

February 13, 2007

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. [ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

According to No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model ]

It’s entirely unscientific to say this, but the idea of cyclic creation/destruction is far more attractive to me than the Big Bang ever was. And while I was reading it, it struck me again how we hear the echoes of myth in modern science. Stories like this tend to confirm the two things I believe quite strongly.

1. There is a lot of wisdom in ancient mythologies, religious practice, and tradition that we have simply chosen to ignore.
2. Any time a scientist says “we are certain of X” about any non-trivial subject, get yer throwin’ pies ready.

That’s not to say that science isn’t often correct in the general and near-term. But the larger the question asked, the greater the margin of error. So it is no surprise to me that, in discussing the birth and the death of the universe, science can argue whether there is one “Big Bang” or many.

When folks say things like “there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of God” or “science has proven there is no God,” I think “science has ‘proved’ a lot of things.” But frequently, science is wrong. So consider this comment on the above-linked post:

I found it difficult to fathom the “Big Bang” also, and the “Big Rip?” This cyclical model intuitively makes more sense. No X-factor! No beginning or end of time. The universe following only the laws of physics to form galaxies, solar systems, planets, plants, monkeys and man. Does this finally remove the “supernatural” once and for all? Hail Galileo, Hail Einstein, Hail Darwin.

Here we’ve just had a theory put forward that, if acceptable, radically restructures how we think about time, existence, and creation. A theory that sees the universe as infinite rather than finite, and a theory that could potentially supplant one of the central theories of modern science. And we’re supposed to buy, on implication, that this removes the “supernatural” from possibility? Hah. I know I have a lemon cream around here somewhere…

Posted in Religion, Science