It is well known that the special theory of relativity owes its
existence to the fact that there is an upper limit to velocities
of motion and signalling in nature, viz. the velocity of light.

This fact has also very important consequences for the subject of
cosmology, since it makes it impossible to investigate vast
spaces without also contemplating enormous lengths of time.

In
particular, any knowledge that we may possess about very distant
objects must be due to processes (signals) originating on those
objects a very long time ago. Although the very definitions of
distances and times become ambiguous in this context it is clear
that the great intervals occurring raise new questions.

If (as is
widely held to be true) the Universe is in a state of evolution,
then light from distant parts of space must also convey
information about the early history of the Universe.

If, on the
other hand, there is no such evolution, then the light must
contain information about its absence.

Therefore the entire
question of the origin and the evolution of the Universe becomes
part of the general cosmological problem. In particular, the
nature of the very beginning (if there was one) or,
alternatively, the origin of all matter and radiation has formed
a specially controversial subject generally termed the problem of
"creation".

In this context, too, we encounter the habit of the human mind to
imagine that complexity is only ephemeral, that the further we
dip into the past the simpler the state we shall find.

I don't want to be punched in the
face by God if you ***** him off.
-=-
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.

It is well known that the special theory of relativity owes its
existence to the fact that there is an upper limit to velocities
of motion and signalling in nature, viz. the velocity of light.

This fact has also very important consequences for the subject of
cosmology, since it makes it impossible to investigate vast
spaces without also contemplating enormous lengths of time. In
particular, any knowledge that we may possess about very distant
objects must be due to processes (signals) originating on those
objects a very long time ago. Although the very definitions of
distances and times become ambiguous in this context it is clear
that the great intervals occurring raise new questions.

If (as is
widely held to be true) the Universe is in a state of evolution,
then light from distant parts of space must also convey
information about the early history of the Universe. If, on the
other hand, there is no such evolution, then the light must
contain information about its absence.

Therefore the entire
question of the origin and the evolution of the Universe becomes
part of the general cosmological problem. In particular, the
nature of the very beginning (if there was one) or,
alternatively, the origin of all matter and radiation has formed
a specially controversial subject generally termed the problem of
"creation".

In this context, too, we encounter the habit of the human mind to
imagine that complexity is only ephemeral, that the further we
dip into the past the simpler the state we shall find. How far
this process can be continued is a question to which no agreed
answer is in sight. What type of "last answer" is found most
satisfactory depends on individual taste. Hence here less sure
guidance is given than elsewhere in science by how satisfying or
otherwise a theory is. Broadly speaking three types of answer as
to the nature of the "beginning" have been given, and opinions
differ widely as to the relative merits of these:

(i) The "beginning" is a singular point on the border of the
realm of physical science. Any question which refers to
antecedents of the beginning or its nature can no longer be
answered by physics, and is not a proper question for it.

(ii) The "beginning" was a particularly simple state, the
simplest, most harmonious and most permanent we can imagine. It
contained within itself, though, the seeds of growth and
evolution, which at some indefinite moment started off a chain of
complicated processes which by now have changed this to our
present Universe.

(iii) There was no "beginning". The Universe on the large scale
is either unchanging or possibly going through cyclical changes,
but is of infinite age.

A cosmological theory must at least lead up to this, the problem
of "creation", and opinions differ as to what constitutes a
satisfactory answer which is, I don't want to be punched in the
face by God if you ***** him off.

This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.