Mark Peaty wrote:
> Brent, how is this for whimsy:
>
> what are now called black holes, and apparently quite well
> verified [and totally not falsified], are conceived to be
> regions of space time in which gravity is so strong that nothing
> from within can escape. Each black hole is centred upon and
> generated by a mass of collapsed matter within which all other
> forces have been overwhelmed by gravity so that the mass is
> always accelerating inwards towards a 'singularity'.
>
> The 'big bang' theory of where the universe came from appears to
> posit some indescribably more massive central starting point
> from which everything now in existence came.
No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy.
>To me there is
> something wrong with this idea because there is no reason for
> thinking that the strength of gravity now is any more than it
> has been in the past, so how come everything managed to escape?
> "Does not compute" says I.
>
> So how about this: There was never any 'singularity' in the
> sense of an isolated ball of energy/mass which exploded
> 'outwards' to spread itself ever more thinly through the 'empty'
> space-time that grew and continues to grow.
All current theories suppose that spacetime is expanding - not that a ball of matter expands into a pre-existing spacetime.
Brent Meeker
>Instead what
> actually happened, for reasons as yet very unclear, the
> infinitely extended plenum of completely entangled and
> connected, spaceless, energy/mass broke. It cracked open and a
> bubble developed. This bubble of what we now call space-time
> grew because all the rest of spaceless energy/mass was and still
> is all connected and entangled so it keeps tightly to itself.
> What we infer as an expanding universe is in some sense 'within'
> but effectively separated out of black hole stuff. Entropy is
> increasing because the inner surface of our bubble universe is
> expanding at the speed of light. What we consider to be matter
> [stuff] is built out of the flotsam left over as the inner
> surface of the bubble disintegrated, possibly in some sort of
> fractal manner.
>
> If this were all true, then what is 'out there' beyond the edge
> of our universe is basically the same as the singularity at the
> centre of each black hole.
> :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty CDES
>
> mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
>
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> It was an interesting hypothesis,
>>> When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of
>>> reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we
>>> have no more information about it and so the overall information of the
>>> world decreases and the same happens to entropy.
>>> In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the
>>> world should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's
>>> somehow inconvenient.
>> It's also wrong, according to our best theory of BHs, the entropy of a BH is proportional to it's surface area and the maximum entropy configuration of a given mass is for it to form a BH. The information interpretation of this is that the information that seems to be "lost" by something falling into a black hole is encoded in correlations between what falls in and the black-body Hawking radiation from the surface. So the entropy increases in that microscopically encoded information becomes unavailable to use macroscopic beings. This is where all entropy comes from anyway - the dynamical evolution of QM is deterministic (at least in the MWI) and so information is never lost or gained.
>>
>> Brent Meeker
>>
>>> If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the
>>> nature we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some
>>> that have lead to our physical laws and not the other possibilities?
>>> In this situation the idea of multiverse might help.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/07, *Colin Hales* <c.hales.domain.name.hidden
>>> <mailto:c.hales.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye,
>>> thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth.....
>>>
>>> I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it
>>> up as
>>> part of my PhD process.
>>>
>>> The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual
>>> instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set
>>> is the
>>> universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC
>>> primitives.
>>>
>>> As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can
>>> use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of
>>> the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the
>>> abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely
>>> depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales. Reality is a
>>> literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy
>>> Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs.
>>>
>>> Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive
>>> 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules,
>>> Crystals....etc...
>>>
>>> One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called
>>> 'Maxwells-Equations'. Another is the Navier-Stokes equations (different
>>> context), another is Quantum Mechanics, the standard particle model
>>> and so
>>> on. None of them are reality - merely depictions of a surface
>>> behaviour of
>>> it. In the model there is only one universe and only one justified or
>>> needed. Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about
>>> multiverses.....they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the
>>> universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary!
>>>
>>> You know , it's funny what EC makes the universe look like..... the
>>> boundary of the universe is the collective event horizon of all black
>>> holes. On the other side is nothing. The endlessly increasing size of
>>> black holes is what corresponds to the endlessly increasing entropy
>>> (disorder - which is the dispersal of the deep universe back to
>>> nothing at
>>> the event horizons). The measure of the surface area of the black
>>> holes is
>>> the entropy of the whole universe.
>>>
>>> The process of dispersal at the boundary makes it look like the universe
>>> is expanding - to us from the inside. The reality is actually the
>>> reverse
>>> - the spatiotemporal circumstances are of shrinkage - due to the
>>> loss of
>>> the redundant fabric of the very deepest layers of reality being
>>> eaten by
>>> the black holes, dragging it in....whilst the organisation of
>>> collections
>>> of it at the uppermost layers is maintained (like space, atoms etc).
>>> (Imagine a jumper knitted of wool with a huge number of threads in the
>>> yarn - remove the redundant threads from the inside and the jumper
>>> shrinks, but is still a jumper, just getting smaller....(everything else
>>> around looks like it's getting bigger from the point of view of
>>> being the
>>> jumper.).... our future?...we'll all blink out of existence as the event
>>> horizons of black holes that grow and grow and grow and do it faster
>>> and
>>> faster and faster until..... merging and merging until they all
>>> merge and
>>> then PFFFFFT! NOTHING..... and the whole process starts again with a new
>>> axiom set....round and round and round....we go...
>>>
>>> Weird huh?
>>>
>>> So I reckon you're on the right track. You don't have to believe me
>>> about
>>> any of it... but I can guarantee you'll get answers if you keep
>>> looking at
>>> it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building
>>> blocks'
>>> of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief
>>> be our
>>> perceptual/epistemological goals) ...
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> colin hales
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
>>> > I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string
>>> theory and
>>> depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating
>>> strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for
>>> different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing
>>> patterns
>>> and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might
>>> correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings...
>>> > I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very
>>> interesting.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mohsen Ravanbakhsh.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 13:34:00 PDT