Many universes?
Offline Okay - I heard Richard Carrier explain something about theoretical universe origins that makes intuitive sense to me! YAY!!
...Uh. But I want to make sure that:
A) I actually do understand the basic concept,
and
B) That's it's a reasonable hypothesis
Essentially, the argument I heard Carrier give was that every black hole, when enough matter has fallen into it and been put under sufficient pressure, may in fact spawn a sort of 'big bang' event on it's 'opposite' side (when things have been brought to a point) and create a new universe. The univer it creates eventually forms it's own black holes, which repeat this process, and so every universe that is spawn is basically it's own universe-factory.
Uh. If I have that right, isn't that a 'problem', so to speak, in terms of what we know of thermodynamics? Such a system would be violating entropy, wouldn't it?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
I'm not sure I'll contribute anything useful at this point but I do remember reading a similar paper a while back postulating that black holes may contain universes and, thus, that also meant our universe existed within a black hole... I'll see if I can rustle it up. Maybe it has answers to the entropy question.
M
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Yup, I've also recently read something proposing that our universe actually resides within a black hole. If we're speaking strictly of thermodynamics, I've often wondered about that as well.
Actually, now that I think of it, the first time I ever heard such a postulation was from Sagan during the Cosmos series/book. If I'm recalling correctly he said something to the effect of, if you want to know what it's like within a black hole just take a look around you. But he then countered, sort of, talking about not knowing whether the universe was open or closed and other stuff I am no doubt forgetting. It's been a while since I last sat down and watched it.
I believed it was first proposed by Lee Simlion. He critizes string theory for being based on speculation and as of now is unfalsifiable, and then proposes this theory which is speculation and as of now unfalsifiable.
Kind of like information gods?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Dunno if I like that concept, partly for that problem with entropy.
A scenario which avoids problems with entropy assumes that new Universes may trigger from some tiny particle or virtual particle fluctuation within an old Universe, that tiny bit of an old, high entropy Universe will contain a negligible share of all the spread-out entropy of the old Universe, so the new universe will be starting off with very small entropy again, thus avoiding any problem with that infamous Law.
This was presented within the idea of the ultimate fate of the Universe being the Big Rip, where the accelerating rate of expansion which we seem to see today eventually lead to widely dispersed residual clumps of 'ordinary' matter in a Universe dominated by Dark Energy and maybe dark matter, within which occasionally the quantum jitters occasionally crossed the threshold to trigger a new Big Bang event and a new Universe budded off.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You're right Hamby, how could I possibly retain my belief with that hard hitting comment?
By remaining ignorant.
Duh.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
By answering with a sarcastic aside instead of a rational argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks Kev, so should I just hit my head with a hammer or stick to sarcastic asides with no argument?
You could take another route and actually rationally address the point I made.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Okay, so what if it's speculation?
Speculation doesn't mean it's wrong. It gives the incentive to search more to see how it holds up with better data.
How many different ways do we need to go over this? Speculation without evidence = invalid as a positive belief.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Good point. Next time I see Carrier or any one else bring up String Theory or multi-verse, I'll rail them in the face.
Jesus Christ fucking Mary with a pogo stick, Pineapple!
Make a point, please? Say what you mean.
Oh, and before you do, I have no problem with you getting down on string theory. I'm not a mathematician, and all I can do is go on what I've read, which is very little. To me, it sounds like an untestable theory, and you would be right to get upset if anyone claims it as anything more than a potentially plausible theory.
Having said that, I also happen to know a few physicists, and from what I understand, even though string theory is entirely theoretical, it is not without its own math. That is, once you make your initial (unfounded) assumptions, the whole thing works out pretty nicely.
So you tell me, Pineapple, is an incoherent definition of an unnecessary (and ultimately confounding) god the same thing as a mathematically supported theory that might be true if certain very well educated guesses about the universe turn out to be true, and if true, would parsimoniously explain currently unanswered questions?
Don't just gloss over that, Pineapple. God doesn't answer any questions. It just makes things more difficult to answer. It is the opposite of parsimonious. Outside of making you feel good about your life in some mysterious way, the god concept does nothing for cosmology.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I wasn't trying to "go down" on string theory. I actually kinda like the idea in fact.
Not really.
Since I'm not really proposing it as a cosmology theory, it not doing anything for cosmology is irrelevant (see I can use big words too...)
So what question does your god answer for you?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Mostly the why the universe exists in the first place.
How does "God did it" make it any more satisfying than "Two branes did it"?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Then the question would be why do the branes exist.
At least 'branes' and strings are entities based on mathematical extrapolation from known physics, and sure, we can still hypothesise how they originated.
Whereas a powerful sentient being capable of willing the Universe into existence is a pointless idea from every angle: it goes way beyond anything we observe in nature, with even the most elaborate instrumentation, and the whole idea of 'explaining' where anything comes from by just positing something vastly more 'powerful', with attributes way beyond the 'created' object, leads to a monstrous regression problem, ie, 'where did God come from' ???
Whereas with modern science, we have pretty good evidence that complexity, and what appears to the naive viewer as signs of 'intelligent' creation, can emerge from simpler elements.
What we don't really find in nature are what would be actual fingerprints of conscious power intervening in our reality, which would be events which are neither random, chaotic, nor clearly the consistent, determined outcome of other events, IOW something which appears to behave one way or another on a cosmic 'whim'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Pineapple, Bob has done a good job of explaining why "Goddidit" is a nonsense answer, but try to think about this another way. No matter what you define as "god," you're still going to be obliged to explain what god came from. Once you explain that, you're going to have to explain what that came from, and so on, and so on.
What we're trying to get you to understand is that there is a two part problem with inserting intelligence somewhere into the mix.
1) It's extraneous and doesn't answer any questions. Even if there were an intelligence, you need an explanation for that. Are you just going to keep postulating gods which created the gods which created the gods which created the gods? Eventually, you have to face the fact that there's an epistemological brick wall beyond which all we can do is shrug our shoulders and admit we haven't the foggiest idea.
2) Intelligence is complex. The universe began with simplicity. To postulate intelligence, you must go against all the laws of physics, biology, and logic by proposing that complexity came first.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Which explains why we're having such an easy time explaining what happened at the begininng.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Deflect much?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
CPT Pineapple,
Smolin has managed to make a few falsifiable predictions with his theory. (See paper 6):
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Smolin_Lee/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100
It also explains why our Universe appears to have started in conditions similar to a black hole and what happens to black holes when they evaporate (they 'detach' from our realm of spacetime).
Here is a good argument for the validity of multiple universes over "goddidit":
http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2006/11/problems-for-fine-tuning-argument.html
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Wow, cool thread folks. Better understanding black holes and gravity, as now we are even exploring on a QM level, will obviously answer many questions ... and heck, maybe even bring a reasonable beginning to a "theory of everything", where even consciousness may possibly be re-defined in physics terms to include all energy/matter to some always present constant degree. (maybe ???)
On a number line, some how organized of all that we know exists, at what point would we mark the spot where conscious begins? Geezz, is my question just messed up??? I don't mean consciousness as we generally define it, but instead more like on a ever present constant gravity level. Hell, I can't even form the question properly. I need more science ....
Please please, hurry up scientists ... I am nearly dead, and we dummies want to know, darn it. What the fuck am I ... as I mean what is g-awe-d.
Atheism Books.
I wouldn't hold your breath, IAGAY.
It's probable that we won't ever know exactly what the whole deal with the universe is (...and that's part of the allure, really). Just too much to figure out within a very finite span of time.
Fortunately, that also means that we'll always be kept entertained.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Indeed Kevin as I grasp another breath .... WOW