Re: What before big bang?

From: YBM (ybmess_at_nooos.fr)
Date: 09/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:27:40 +0200

Greg Gerardin a écrit :
> I've read both books and it's quite clear that "Avant le Big-Bang" has
> strictly *nothing* to do with god and mysticism. It's not even suggested,
> it's not even between the lines. There is absolutely nothing in that book
> that goes in that direction!
>
> One *could* argue that their theory is "anti-mystic", since according to it,
> the universe came out of "zero" (so, it didn't came out of "god")...

They expressed the idea that the Universe came from an intelligent
intention several times, and the emphasis on the so called "information"
without material support at the beginning of the Universe is only, IMO,
the first step in order to propose some mathematical God behind the
scene. You can have a look at this interview from 1991 (there are
numerous other ones, but not on the Web) :

http://www.hebraica.org/histoire.php?cahier=1&id=12

---------------------------------
IGB : [...] Donc l’univers est immatériel. Comme le pense Jean Guitton,
il est quasiment certain que les futures générations de scientifiques
affineront cette image d’un Univers immatériel profondément ordonné, et
comme résultant d’une intention. D’une intelligence en somme.

Le Point : Vous allez loin ?

IGB : D’une intelligence. Tout ce passe comme si les phénomènes à
l’échelon macroscopique et microscopique, notamment à l’échelle
quantique, manifestaient la présence d’un ordre qui lui-même renvoie à
une forme d’intelligence, qui n’est pas le fruit du hasard. Partout,
nous rencontrons l’image d’un ordre. Que ce soit dans l’invisible décrit
par la théorie quantique, ou encore dans le visible, en particulier tel
qu’il est appréhendé par cette approche toute nouvelle, la théorie du
chaos déterministe.
---------------------------------

Just to make sure (*) : I'm not saying there is something so wrong
in trying to proove God by Science even if I consider such an idea
as absurd. I'm just trying to understand their motivation to try
so desperately to get some "official" and academic support, at
University first, then on public scientific groups. Their concern
is not science, their concern is not money (the crappy book is selling
very well without any real scientific support or background). So,
what else ? Some people proposed madness, I suggest mysticism.

(*) : I know that beginning a sentence by this is the better way to
be misquoted by the B&B. So, in case they'd want to quote me, I
forbid them, in name of honesty, to remove this paragraph.

Relevant Pages