Review of ‘Genesis of the Cosmos’

Ancient Physics, Modern Myths: Paul LaViolette’s Pathbreaking “Genesis of the Cosmos” – Review by Raymond Lynch

“For those who are open to a new and unfamiliar theory of microphysics, an unusual understanding of cosmogenesis, a serious consideration of a host of conventionally-red-flagged, status-quo-tabooed, lunatic-fringe topics (including ancient metaphysics, the Tarot, astrology, Atlantis, and the I Ching), a comprehensive and alarmingly specific correlation of subquantum physics with ancient creation myths, and an across-the-board, no-holds-barred rejection of every significant tenet of twentieth century relativistic cosmology, there is probably no better place to begin than Paul LaViolette’s very original “Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation”.

In Part 1 of his book, LaViolette lays out his theory of subquantum kinetics. Using precisely the kinds of rhetorical devices —namely, imagery, metaphor, decree, and supposition—that are employed in almost all standard scientific models of “physical reality” (whatever that is), he offers us an open systems theory of continuous creation rooted in organic processes of self-organization.

Absolute Newtonian space and time are reinstated, along with the ether of nineteenth century vintage (the long-thought-to-be-discredited prime substance said to pervade this boundless Euclidian space and “infinite” time). LaViolette doesn’t entertain the notion of “creation ex nihilo” because he views space, time, and the ether as the precursors of creation, regarding them as essentially uncreated.

The elements and processes necessary for LaViollette’s creation story arise “spontaneously,” which is to say “unpredictably,” which is to say “inexplicably.”

LaViolette is clearly aware of the irreducible mysteriousness of this entire creation business, as were the ancient mythographers we now discount as hopelessly naïve. All creation schemes, scientific or otherwise, are unavoidably metaphorical. LaViolette’s metaphors, however, have two virtues: (1) they are more-or-less coherent; and, (2) given the suggested correlations, they seem to conform well with some of our important ancient creation narratives.

Relativistic cosmology, on the other hand, employs metaphors that are as incoherent as those of modern mathematics, and they conform to nothing (except perhaps the God of the Old Testament, an apparent, part-time psychopath).”

Wow! This is what I consider to be a proper review. See next 2 of my posts.