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
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 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* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to