On Sep 3, 2009, at 2:24 PM, c b wrote:
>
> CB: On a side point, doesn't the Big Bang theory imply that even the
> natural laws change ?
Not at all. The "Big Bang theory" was arrived at by retrospective blackboard equations deriving initial conditions (the first microseconds after the Big Banger did His work) from current theoretical notions about the universe. Since that retrospection is carried out on the basis of some current conceptions of the mathematical structure of the universe (or, for certain theorists, the multiverse or multiverses) the procedure by which the Big Bang was cooked up involves the constancy of what it's inventors imagine to be unchanging natural laws.
Of course, once the Big Bang had been postulated, attempts to rederive the present universe from it presented an even more nonsensical picture than would, for instance, a computer translation program repeatedly retranslating back to the original language through several iterations. Hence "modern" physics' invention of "dark energy" and "dark matter"--entities with much less empirical basis than the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy.
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos