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 email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---