the more i create fractals, the more i see them in nature. they are everywhere, quite literally. this leads me to the believe that the universe is a) made of math, and b) is recursive. microcosmic to macrocosmic similarity, with repeating trends ad infinitum.
i find it interesting when Albert Einstein said the universe could be finite(having a definite beggining and end) and yet have no boundaries.
i was also watching a documentary on the string theory with Ed Witten (a physicist) and i find it inteteresting that it said "the universe may be a strange and lonely one, populated only by abstract concepts and many dimensions".
I like the universe where it is expanding and contracting indefinitely. after reach certain "size", it will contract back to a single point, another big bang happens and new universe is born, possibly with new law of nature
There's a lot of models based off big bounce, so are any of them more appealing or less appealing for you or they'll equal in level of appeal? The phoenix theory of the universe/multiverse is just one of them.
really? there are a lot of models? I didn't know. well, I think all of them is ok. I dislike the current model where universe is expanding forever, and even more and more accelerating, which finally ends in "big tear".
Personally, I really, really like the Flat Earth Society. It's an amazing example of the power of the human mind and its capability to produce utter rubbish.
Seriously: I like the theory of computational equivalency, i.e. that any sufficiently complex system is essentially just a very big computer, including the universe itself. This is not a theory that I think can ever be proven or disproven (and I actually think that there are things that cannot easily be reconciled with this), but it's an interesting different point of view on the entire thing.
Your right of course, but he fails to argue for it at all because by his own admission his definition of nothing already has something in it, and so by the very least his title is misleading, as is the notion that it is an alternative to theism.
The theistic contention, at least classical theistic, is that something cannot arise from nothing. The alternative would of course be that something can in fact arise from nothing, which is what Krauss attempts to demonstrate. His demonstration however is doomed to fail because his conception of nothing implicitly contains something, and thus, even though the idea might be correct, his execution or argument for it is flawed and consequentially, he cannot be said to represent an acceptable alternative to the theistic contention.
viberunnerFeatured By OwnerNov 5, 2012Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
The classic theistic contention that something cannot arise from nothing attempts to get-around it for the deity by infinitely backdating complexity. To a rational person that's a patently absurd position.
Thus any attempt at explaining the singularity, including his - which to you is flawed, and that's your right - is only that: an explanation of the singularity. It is not needed to be an alternative to theistic contention in the same way examining the fossil record is not needed to counter the idea of an existent Cthulhu.
I like the theory that the cosmos is a giant hologram projected inwards from the edges of the universe. Scientists are performing experiments looking for pixellation at subatomic levels. So maybe someone did create everything, but it still looks like we're a byproduct rather than the focus.
There's also the "Hollow Earth" theory, which proposes that the surface of the Earth actually faces inwards and that we could see things on the other side of the planet by looking up at the sky. Like Columbus in 3D, basically. It was Nazi WTF science, so it didn't work.
For the pheonix theory to work, wouldn't all matter in the universe have to fall into black holes eventually? Or am I misunderstanding it? It seems like there might be less and less matter/energy in each cycle, if we consider the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe moving everything farther and farther apart. Interesting, though.
What scientists would look for pixellation at subatomic level? That assumes we live in a voxelated universe and there's no logical reasons for that or am I taking that too literally? However, it's a interesting idea though.
The hollow earth theory is very interesting. What would happen if that's true and what would happen to your body after you died?
[link] Wikipedia can explain this better than I can. 'In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies.' I'm far from an expert on interpreting scientific theories, but this sounds just as interesting as the hollow earth theory, if not more so. If I'm reading the above sentence correctly, the third dimension disappears entirely at the subatomic level. That's one way to explain why things are so different down there.
As far as I know the hollow earth theory is just a different way of visualizing the cosmos that puts emphasis on different aspects, so I'm guessing your body would do the same thing it normally does. Solum-Ipsum has posted some nice links for visualizing this. The interesting thing is that this model proposes a center-point for the entire universe. Although, given that this is just the universe seen through a circle inversion, I'm not sure if that has any more theological/afterlife-related significance than the endless sphere of stars we see surrounding the Earth.
Someone else knows of HET? Btw. the basic concept alone (without the unfounded parts) works, and there are three notable differences: space condenses as we get closer to the center of the hollow universe, light (and other forms of energy spread in arcs, and the most significant is that "heaven" actually has a center.
I don't really know that much about it, but it's a very interesting theory, especially with your clarifications. Conceptualizing the Earth in this way is really pretty fun.
So the surface of the Earth functions as the boundary containing the universe, but the interior is vastly larger than the boundary implies due to space compression. And because light travels in arcs, we see the situation reversed, with outer space as the shell and Earth as the "center"?
Where does "heaven" fit into all of this, by the way?
HET [link] (illustration) is based on the idea of circle inversion. Here is an app with a description: [link]
As you can see, the infinitely distant and infinitely vast boundary of the universe becomes infinitely condensed in an infinitely distant central dot. This is the most significant part of this experiment, as we have changed literally nothing but the perspective on the level of everything, yet something that used to be something you cannot grasp now becomes something that can be pinpointed by simply looking perpendicular to the top of the sky. At the same moment, the fires become a distant sphere further away from that dot, and the condensed center of the earth becomes the infinitely diffused boundary of the universe.
Heaven comes into the picture if we use it in an othological analogy: this perspective creates a compass to heaven's abstract cosmological understanding, the center dot being the primary governing force and the origin of the universe, and the cosmic analogy of hell (the condensed dot we 'focus' on in our usual perspective) being an infinite distance, disoriented and left by God. Of course, elaborating this any further would be a detour toward mysticism and religion, so I'll just stop here.
Thanks for the explanation! That cleared up a lot of things. It's interesting how the two worldviews are pretty much equivalent physically, with the difference being that hollow earth theory explicitly gives Earth a special place in the universe.
I wonder, what would the view from Mars look like in this model? Or from Alpha Centauri?
Yes, that is something also notable to consider, as it gives [this place I inhabit] as the basis. Also, what if you consider your skull as a morphed sphere, and BAM! – you've got the cosmic analogy for solipsism (and through that: panentheism).
Such that the entire universe is a construct projected by a source at its boundary? This is starting to sound like the holographic universe theory. The pieces don't quite fit together but it's fun to consider. [link]
Solipsism is a philosophy in which reality exists only within one's own mind and perception. In our spatial inversion, this is represented by the way that the world is geometrically transformed to the interior of the skull. Note however, that this is a mere allegory, and despite the similarities, the mind is not the same as the brain-matter it is associated with in usual, objective thinking.
Panentheism is a philosophy in which the physical world is like a part of a larger, supernatural entity (i.e. God) which surpasses and envelops it. In this fashion, the "Creation of God" also "consists of God".
The hologram-theory seems interesting, but it may be only vaguely relevant to the above ideas, especially considering that it gives mystical abilities such as independent will and virtual understanding to sub-atomic particles while trying to be overly scientific. It's like saying that sub-atomic particles are connected by a common consciousness, which would bring us back to the idea of the rather "un-scientific" concept of a holistic intelligence that constantly inhabits and governs both time and space from a state free of such conditions.