- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Mark Peaty <mpeaty.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:15:58 +0900

No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive

central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy.

Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so

you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is

not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with,

but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare.

Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that

has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter'

with and within it and indeed I think it is more correct to see

matter as no more and no less than regions of concentrated,

convoluted and self-referencing space-time. This still leaves me

with the idea that our universe, at least prior to its

'inflation', WAS indescribably concentrated, and in some way

very dense, even if we are not allowed to call this mass/energy.

What was it?

My understanding now of the Hubble red-shift is that the overall

expansion of space-time, through which the ancient energy

signals have been passing, is what has stretched the wave

lengths to the extent that has been calculated. A corollary of

this is that energy and matter were much more densely packed in

the early universe.

Regards

Mark Peaty CDES

mpeaty.domain.name.hidden

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Brent Meeker wrote:

*> 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
*

*>>>>
*

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Sat Mar 24 2007 - 14:17:12 PDT

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 02:15:58 +0900

No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive

central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy.

Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so

you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is

not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with,

but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare.

Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that

has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter'

with and within it and indeed I think it is more correct to see

matter as no more and no less than regions of concentrated,

convoluted and self-referencing space-time. This still leaves me

with the idea that our universe, at least prior to its

'inflation', WAS indescribably concentrated, and in some way

very dense, even if we are not allowed to call this mass/energy.

What was it?

My understanding now of the Hubble red-shift is that the overall

expansion of space-time, through which the ancient energy

signals have been passing, is what has stretched the wave

lengths to the extent that has been calculated. A corollary of

this is that energy and matter were much more densely packed in

the early universe.

Regards

Mark Peaty CDES

mpeaty.domain.name.hidden

http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/

Brent Meeker wrote:

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Sat Mar 24 2007 - 14:17:12 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST
*