On 2/20/2012 5:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Craig:
where has that "primordial singularity" come from? and what "expansion"?
I like to use terms beyond hearsay or fantasy. (Of course MY narrative
is fantasy based on hearsay, - B U T
it makes sense in its cosequences, I think.)
John M
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:30 am, Kim Jones <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Probably. From a friend of mine on Facebook: "Is it possible
that the notion of the universe expanding is really an illusion
based on the fact that WE are shrinking?"
>
> Perhaps this idea might be used as a "stepping-stone" to a
better idea. Go on, have a laugh if you want but tell me why this
cannot be in any sense possible. Conversely, tell me why it might
be possible if you think so.
>
> Kim Jones
I think that is not only possible, but I think that it has to be the
case. I call my cosmological origin myth 'The Big Diffraction' rather
than the Big Bang for just that reason. If spacetime is created by the
expansion of the primordial singularity, then that means that there
was neither space nor time before the moment of 'expansion'. Therefore
we, and everything in the entire universe was, is, and always will be
physically within the event horizon of the big bang. It cannot be
expanding outside of its own event horizon, so it is space and time
which are surging inward, or within-ward.
We see it as an expansion and forward arrow of time, but that would
make sense since that would be the perspective of a subjective
experience within the spacetime implosion. Objectively, it is the
ratio between mass and space in the universe which is shrinking as
more space is created through the passage of more time (or time is
created through the multiplication of space). The shrinking mass ratio
can also be thought of as energy's entropic exhaust. Events/
experiences build significance (meaning, sequence) and kick out
entropy (space). This is what the universe is; a testing ground for
significance vehicles.
Craig
--
Hi All,
Question: Assuming COMP and all its implications are true, what
does it tell us about the appearance of an "initial singularity" and
"expansion"? I am trying to understand what is the motivation for
Arithmetic bases Realism to have a physical world. I will tentatively
accept Bruno's idea but a question keeps nagging at me: Why bother with
an appearence?
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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.
