A Vast Cosmic Machine

[hondarobot]

I was just out having a good time at an uptown bar I've been frequenting lately, and at some point I had an epiphany of sorts. . . possibly. . . who knows with these sorts of things?

If there is some purpose to the universe, that would seem to indicate that some form of advanced sentient entity was orchestrating the whole thing. Not on an angry god/happy god, cosmic hell or heaven type deal.

If something came into being in the void, then created the universe, what possible motivation would there be behind creating anything beyond it's own amusement or curiosity?

I don't buy into the "Old Human-Like Wizard God" concept. But what inspired/caused the big bang (if that was in fact the beginning of the universe)? What if there was a sentience that found Itself aware, alone in the infinate expanse of Nothing? What would It possibly want to know or do?

What if God built the fundamental laws of science and initiated the creation of a free forming universe, just to see what happens when It didn't have complete control? What if the entirety of the universe is a chaos theory type project to see what happens when an omnipotent being lets things go their own way, and sees what happens as all the billions and billions of various factors slowly expand and strive for a unified cohesion? Trying to build order and reason over zillions of years.

I don't think God want's control over anything, I think It want's to understand the one thing It doesn't know the answer to.

I think the intent of God is. . . to understand who or what created It, and the void It found Itself in. It would logically be the only question God wouldn't know the answer to.

Just a theory. I'm working on it. I find it interesting.

But on the other hand, picture threads of naked girls are nice as well, so don't mind me. I'm just rambling.

:)

[ezed]

I was just out having a good time at an uptown bar I've been frequenting lately, and at some point I had an epiphany of sorts. . . possibly. . . who knows with these sorts of things?

If there is some purpose to the universe, that would seem to indicate that some form of advanced sentient entity was orchestrating the whole thing. Not on an angry god/happy god, cosmic hell or heaven type deal.

If something came into being in the void, then created the universe, what possible motivation would there be behind creating anything beyond it's own amusement or curiosity?

I don't buy into the "Old Human-Like Wizard God" concept. But what inspired/caused the big bang (if that was in fact the beginning of the universe)? What if there was a sentience that found Itself aware, alone in the infinate expanse of Nothing? What would It possibly want to know or do?

What if God built the fundamental laws of science and initiated the creation of a free forming universe, just to see what happens when It didn't have complete control? What if the entirety of the universe is a chaos theory type project to see what happens when an omnipotent being lets things go their own way, and sees what happens as all the billions and billions of various factors slowly expand and strive for a unified cohesion? Trying to build order and reason over zillions of years.

I don't think God want's control over anything, I think It want's to understand the one thing It doesn't know the answer to.

I think the intent of God is. . . to understand who or what created It, and the void It found Itself in. It would logically be the only question God wouldn't know the answer to.

Just a theory. I'm working on it. I find it interesting.

But on the other hand, picture threads of naked girls are nice as well, so don't mind me. I'm just rambling.

:) Don't bogart that joint, my friend. Did you ever read Douglas Adams. (Fuck the movie, read the books). My belief is somebody's orchestrating this shit, but us humans are at the low end of the thermometer (but we think we're better than what we are, maybe by 20 degrees). "It"(gender specifically correct and pc acceptable) doesn't interfer, but takes notes and decides which paths are open to us individually. Sort of like online gaming. He made us, he gave each of us a different set of tools. How well we use them, decides if we go back a level or or move on to the next level. And it goes on and on.

The scary thing would be if this God was really a young boy god and at a certain time his mother broke into his room and screamed "What have you been doing!!!!! Turn off the lights now!!! And go to bed!!!!!!

[MacShreach]

Yeah I've had moments like that, specially after 8 pints of electric soup from the Diggers'.....(Never mind)........

[Jamie Michelle]

I was just out having a good time at an uptown bar I've been frequenting lately, and at some point I had an epiphany of sorts. . . possibly. . . who knows with these sorts of things?

If there is some purpose to the universe, that would seem to indicate that some form of advanced sentient entity was orchestrating the whole thing. Not on an angry god/happy god, cosmic hell or heaven type deal.

If something came into being in the void, then created the universe, what possible motivation would there be behind creating anything beyond it's own amusement or curiosity?

I don't buy into the "Old Human-Like Wizard God" concept. But what inspired/caused the big bang (if that was in fact the beginning of the universe)? What if there was a sentience that found Itself aware, alone in the infinate expanse of Nothing? What would It possibly want to know or do?

What if God built the fundamental laws of science and initiated the creation of a free forming universe, just to see what happens when It didn't have complete control? What if the entirety of the universe is a chaos theory type project to see what happens when an omnipotent being lets things go their own way, and sees what happens as all the billions and billions of various factors slowly expand and strive for a unified cohesion? Trying to build order and reason over zillions of years.

I don't think God want's control over anything, I think It want's to understand the one thing It doesn't know the answer to.

I think the intent of God is. . . to understand who or what created It, and the void It found Itself in. It would logically be the only question God wouldn't know the answer to.

Just a theory. I'm working on it. I find it interesting.

But on the other hand, picture threads of naked girls are nice as well, so don't mind me. I'm just rambling.

:)

You are God. It's just that you've split-up parcels of your consciousness and made the divided parcels of your consciousness undergo a voluntary forgetting in order so that you could experience companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.). It's all just You. You are all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. You are the totality of existence, forever and all times. Now of course the conscious portion of your presently limited viewpoint is not the totality of existence, it is just an infinitely small part of the infinitely greater consciousness of God. But at the ultimate level, you are that greater consciousness, i.e., God.

You are God experiencing and discovering Yourself.

God (i.e., You), in order to have companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.) split-up His (i.e., Your) previously singular consciousness into consciously-distinct parcels and had the divided parcels of His consciousness undergo a voluntary forgetting in order so that He could experience companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.). The voluntary forgetting was a necessary component in this plan, since the whole thing that makes conversation possible is that we each have traveled a different life-path, and hence do not know exactly what each other knows. If we each had the same knowledge and life-path, then conversation, and hence true companionship, would be impossible. But in so doing, He also had to give the divided parcels of His consciousness free-will, otherwise He could not have true companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.): without free-will the divided parcels of His consciousness would be nothing more than puppets--it would be like one having a conversation with a sock-puppet on their own hand. God can perfectly render any environment or experience which is not logically contradictory (such as a "square-circle," a stone so large that even He could not move it, or 2+2=5, etc.). But given that the divided parcels of His consciousness necessarily had to have free-will in order for God's plan in having companionship in the universe to work, this means that these divided parcels of His consciousness can choose to do evil as well as good. And hence the necessary reason for the "Problem of Evil."

To find out what some of the world's foremost physicists--including the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer--have discovered about God, please see:

"Demystifying God":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/learngod.html

And to understand why acceptence of the known laws of physics requires acceptence of the existence of God, please see:

"Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point (i.e., the Physicists' Technical Term for God)":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/physicsgod.html

See also:

"Theology is Now a Branch of Physics":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/tiplerreview.html

To understand what all this means for us here and now--and how it relates to religions--please see:

"Biblical Scripture which Gives Evidence of Tipler's Omega Point Theory":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html

And definitely see also:

Transhumanity Interview with Frank J. Tipler, November 2, 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021124063944/http://transhumanism.com/2002/tipler0201.shtml

Read the below excellent and very informative article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

"The Omega Point and Christianity" by Frank Tipler, Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031113125255/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm

For the version in Dutch, see below:

"Het Punt Omega en het christendom," Frank J. Tipler, Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040205030349/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm

-----

See also Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (i.e., the CTMU, which is on the logical necessity of God's existence), which compliments Prof. Frank Tipler's work quite well (Prof. Tipler and Chris Langan are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design [ISCID] along with the famous Intelligent Design scientists Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, and on Chris Langan's website he lists Frank Tipler's work as supporting his CTMU). Chris Langan is known as the smartest man in America, with an IQ of 195.

Probably the best way to be introduced to the CTMU is by reading the "ISCID Live Moderated Chat: Christopher Langan":

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan-chat.php

Here is Christopher Langan's ISCID page:

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php

See the ABC News transcript of the 20/20 program done on Chris Langan:

"The Smart Guy," Cynthia McFadden, 20/20 (ABC News), December 9, 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html

Chris was also profiled in Popular Science magazine discussing his theory of reality:

"Wise Guy," John R. Quain, Popular Science, October 14, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011015064515/http://www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/

Here is Chris Langan's ISCID paper, "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory":

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

And below is Chris Langan's own website about his CTMU:

http://www.ctmu.org

[trish]

you have some nice stories there. now, how do you propose to test them? what sorts of evidence would verify and what sorts of evidence would falsify them?

[Jamie Michelle]

you have some nice stories there. now, how do you propose to test them? what sorts of evidence would verify and what sorts of evidence would falsify them?

I have already adressed this matter in my above post. The most conservative view of the known laws of physics proves the Omega Point Theory. Hence:

Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory

composite from articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler, taken from:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0104011

http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-03/number-02/v03n02.html

http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/why.html

----------

Astrophysical black holes exist, but Hawking has shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity--which roughly says that probability must be conserved--thus requires that the universe cease to exist after finite proper time, which in turn implies that the universe must be closed in space, with the universe ending in a finite proper time at a final singularity [1]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot decrease, but it can be shown [2, pg. 410] that the amount of entropy already in the CBR (i.e., cosmic background radiation) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound [3] near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S must be equal or less than that constant (i.e., S) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. Roger Penrose showed how to define the shape of a singularity by using the number of horizons that terminate in that singularity--the absence of event horizons by definition means that the shape of the final singularity is a single point, call it the Omega Point [4,5]. The British physicist Malcolm MacCallum has shown that a closed universe with a single point final singularity is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting on just blind and dead forces). The English astronomer John D. Barrow [6] has shown that the evolution of a closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. The American physicist James Yorke [7] has shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) almost certainly must be present arbitrarily close to the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. The American physicist Charles W. Misner [8,9] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any given time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

References:

[1] Tipler, F. J. (1987), "An Achieved Spacetime Infinity," Nature 325, 201-202.
[2] Tipler, F. J. (1994), The Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday).
[3] Schiffer, M. and J. D. Bekenstein (1989), "Proof of the Quantum Bound on Specific Entropy for Free Fields," Physical Review D39, 1109-1115.
[4] Tipler, F. J. (1986), "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics 25, 617-661.
[5] Tipler, F. J. (1992), "The Ultimate Fate of Life in Universes Which Undergo Inflation," Physics Letters B286, 36-43.
[6] Barrow, J. D. (1982), "Chaotic Behaviour in General Relativity," Physics Reports 85, 1-49.
[7] Yorke, J. A. et al (1992), "Using the Sensitive Dependence of Chaos (the 'Butterfly Effect') to Direct Trajectories in an Experimental Chaotic System," Physical Review Letters 68, 2863-2866.
[8] Misner, C. W. (1968), "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal 151, 431-457.
[9] Misner, C. W. (1969), "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters 22, 1071-1074.

[BeardedOne]

*Sigh*

If Jamie didn't talk so much, Jamie would be an interesting person. :?

Sorry, I'm one of those genius/savants that needs things spelled out in small words; speak slowly. :roll:

Fer gawd's...OK...'It's' sake, it's FORTY-FUCKING-TWO!

Get over it, already. :roll:

Kate Clinton, lesbian 'fumorist', summed it up thusly:

"God is a comedian, working for the Marriott Corporation".

'Nuff said.

[trish]

Jamie remarks,
I have already adressed this matter in my above post. The most conservative view of the known laws of physics proves the Omega Point Theory.

Let's suppose Frank is right and his "proof" is correct. What does it proport to prove? The cosmos will collapse into a single point final singularity and as it does so it's entropy will diverge to infinity.

What doesn't Frank's mathematics prove? If the entropy of a collapsing universe diverges, then that universe must be understood to be controlled. Why doesn't the proof reach this far. Because the terminology "understood to be controlled" is simply outside the scope of modern physics. You won't find "understanding" described in the standard model of particle physics nor in the standard texts on general relativity.

But hey, let's give him that too: the universe must be understood to be controlled. How does one get from there to "we are all parcels of god"? But ok...let's grant that one too: we're god.

Still none of this addresses the question of evidence. What sort of experimental evidence would verify or falsify these assertions? Frankly, I don't know how one could possibly verify or falsify the "parcels of god" bit, but Perlmutter, Riess and Schmidt have just nabbed the Shaw Prize in astrophysics for demonstrating the ACCELERATION of the the cosmic expansion by measuring the Hubble diagram of type 1a supernova. This doesn't bode well for Frank's theoretical prediction of a universal collapse.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie remarks,
I have already adressed this matter in my above post. The most conservative view of the known laws of physics proves the Omega Point Theory.

Let's suppose Frank is right and his "proof" is correct. What does it proport to prove? The cosmos will collapse into a single point final singularity and as it does so it's entropy will diverge to infinity.

What doesn't Frank's mathematics prove? If the entropy of a collapsing universe diverges, then that universe must be understood to be controlled. Why doesn't the proof reach this far. Because the terminology "understood to be controlled" is simply outside the scope of modern physics. You won't find "understanding" described in the standard model of particle physics nor in the standard texts on general relativity.


What that means is that in order for the known laws of physics to remain intact then event horizons must be eliminated as the universe diverges into the singularity, of which cannot happen by blind and dead forces, i.e., it can only happen via intelligent control.



But hey, let's give him that too: the universe must be understood to be controlled. How does one get from there to "we are all parcels of god"? But ok...let's grant that one too: we're god.

Still none of this addresses the question of evidence. What sort of experimental evidence would verify or falsify these assertions? Frankly, I don't know how one could possibly verify or falsify the "parcels of god" bit, but Perlmutter, Riess and Schmidt have just nabbed the Shaw Prize in astrophysics for demonstrating the ACCELERATION of the the cosmic expansion by measuring the Hubble diagram of type 1a supernova. This doesn't bode well for Frank's theoretical prediction of a universal collapse.

Lawrence Krauss along with Michael Turner have already worked out that it's impossible to say based upon empirical observation whether the universe is open, flat, or closed--i.e., a so-called "open" universe can still collapse, etc.

Some have claimed that the supernovae data suggesting that the universe's expansion seems to be speeding up shows that the universe is open. But as physicists Krauss and Turner demonstrate in the below paper, the supernovae data do not and cannot show this:

"Geometry and Destiny" (Apr. 1999):

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9904020

[ezed]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

[Jamie Michelle]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

[ezed]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

[Jamie Michelle]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

Sounds fine to me. All that's needed is your dick.

[ezed]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

Sounds fine to me. All that's needed is your dick.

Jaimie, I'm in love, you're in fla, I'll see what I can do. I'm in MA. But promise me no talk of politics or religion till we're both in a state of orgasmic bliss. And if I fall asleep after we mutually cum don't kill me or anything because I will resume conversations of the for mentioned topics after I've had some Dunkin Donuts coffee.

[Jamie Michelle]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

Sounds fine to me. All that's needed is your dick.

Jaimie, I'm in love, you're in fla, I'll see what I can do. I'm in MA. But promise me no talk of politics or religion till we're both in a state of orgasmic bliss. And if I fall asleep after we mutually cum don't kill me or anything because I will resume conversations of the for mentioned topics after I've had some Dunkin Donuts coffee.

Okay, so you're in love. When your love becomes enough that you come visit me, then we'll talk.

[ezed]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

Sounds fine to me. All that's needed is your dick.

Jaimie, I'm in love, you're in fla, I'll see what I can do. I'm in MA. But promise me no talk of politics or religion till we're both in a state of orgasmic bliss. And if I fall asleep after we mutually cum don't kill me or anything because I will resume conversations of the for mentioned topics after I've had some Dunkin Donuts coffee.

Okay, so you're in love. When your love becomes enough that you come visit me, then we'll talk.

Okay, the west coast of central fla, ...it may happen...I'll pm you if I may get there. You may not love me thou. But love is a relative term. We may have a blast for a short period of time and then welcome the separation.

[Jamie Michelle]

So is anyone up for a bowling Marathon??? They'll be serving beverages and providing santizied shoes that you can where out to the car!

How about a cocksucking marathon? Or even better, a cock-riding marathon?

The latter sounds best to me, since then I can just lay back and enjoy the ride.

So far as the beverages go, I certainly don't mind drinking while I'm going for a ride on cock. I figure if somebody crashes, then it's not my fault, since after all, I'm just along for the ride. And if someone wants to polish my high heel sandals while they're up over my head as I'm being dick-pounded, then that's their business.

As far as wearing santizied shoes out to the car, I figure if I've done my job right then they ought to be splattered with cum, and hence not exactly sanitary.

Okay, count me in, i'll be right back, I got to return my shoes to the desk :D

Sounds fine to me. All that's needed is your dick.

Jaimie, I'm in love, you're in fla, I'll see what I can do. I'm in MA. But promise me no talk of politics or religion till we're both in a state of orgasmic bliss. And if I fall asleep after we mutually cum don't kill me or anything because I will resume conversations of the for mentioned topics after I've had some Dunkin Donuts coffee.

Okay, so you're in love. When your love becomes enough that you come visit me, then we'll talk.

Okay, the west coast of central fla, ...it may happen...I'll pm you if I may get there. You may not love me thou. But love is a relative term. We may have a blast for a short period of time and then welcome the separation.

Sure. Hit me up sometime. Here's my email address: femmejamie@yahoo.com .

[BeardedOne]

OK, I'm bleery-eyed (Having actually =slept= for a bit last nite, even with all the fireworks going on in the neighborhood all nite), but is anyone else seeing the title of this thread as A Vast Comic Machine whenever they look at it? :?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) I love comics. :D

[MacShreach]

OK, I'm bleery-eyed (Having actually =slept= for a bit last nite, even with all the fireworks going on in the neighborhood all nite), but is anyone else seeing the title of this thread as A Vast Comic Machine whenever they look at it? :?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :) I love comics. :D

:idea:

[trish]

Jamie, I see that you and Ezed were having a good time while I was out reading Krauss and Turner  I just want to say up front that I enjoy your posts and respect your opinion (though of course many times I don’t agree). It’s sooo easy, in forums such as these, that disagreeing parties come off unintentionally (albeit sometimes intentionally) as catty and snide. So I just want to repeat: I’m a fan.

Thankyou for directing me to Krauss and Turner. As they admit, there’s nothing new there: yet, given the temporary historical suppression of cosmological constant, we do tend to forget that geometry determines destiny only when the cosmological constant is zero. Consequently, as Krauss and Turner point out, “we cannot definitively argue that … an open Universe will expand forever.” This certainly makes Frank Tipler’s cosmology more difficult to verify or falsify. But it seems also to present an obstruction to his proof that the universe must be closed. Let me quote what I take to be your paraphrase of his argument:


Astrophysical black holes exist, but Hawking has shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity…thus requires that the universe cease to exist after finite proper time, which in turn implies that the universe must be closed in space, with the universe ending in a finite proper time at a final singularity

The problem is, a collapsing universe doesn’t have to be closed. But Frank seems to use the hypothesis of a closed universe to derive that the final singularity must be a single point.

(On the side: isn’t it odd that Krauss and Turner’s paper “Geometry and Destiny” doesn’t mention Tipler’s definitive proof that the universe is heading toward an “Omega Point” singularity).

A further difficulty with Tipler’s “proof” turns on his peculiar take on the Black-hole evaporation/Unitarity Paradox. Most investigators take this difficulty as a sign that GR or QFT or both need reworking. Tipler takes both general relativity and quantum field theory as correct and avoids the paradox by deducing the finite life-span of the cosmos. Unfortunately the evaporation/unitarity paradox is not the only contradiction between GR and QFT and the assumption of a cosmic life-span doesn’t render the two theories compatible.

Many researchers believe microscopic black holes were created during the big-bang and that most of these have already evaporated (in spite of the unitarity problem) long ago, though some of the larger ones might still be around to be detected. Some researchers (Jonathan Feng of MIT and Alfred Shapere at University of Kentucky) are attempting to detect microscopic black holes that are produced by violent cosmic ray collisions with our atmosphere. These holes would be so tiny they’d evaporate immediately (in spite of the unitarity problem) and could only be detected by the shape of the energy spectrum of their decay.

I have to say, I adore Frank Tipler in many ways. He’s written many provocative articles and has done some really first rate work. But he a long way from proving there was a conscious god who got lonely, broke itself into parcels and became the universe and that we are him/her.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, I see that you and Ezed were having a good time while I was out reading Krauss and Turner  I just want to say up front that I enjoy your posts and respect your opinion (though of course many times I don’t agree). It’s sooo easy, in forums such as these, that disagreeing parties come off unintentionally (albeit sometimes intentionally) as catty and snide. So I just want to repeat: I’m a fan.

Thankyou for directing me to Krauss and Turner. As they admit, there’s nothing new there: yet, given the temporary historical suppression of cosmological constant, we do tend to forget that geometry determines destiny only when the cosmological constant is zero. Consequently, as Krauss and Turner point out, “we cannot definitively argue that … an open Universe will expand forever.” This certainly makes Frank Tipler’s cosmology more difficult to verify or falsify. But it seems also to present an obstruction to his proof that the universe must be closed. Let me quote what I take to be your paraphrase of his argument:


Astrophysical black holes exist, but Hawking has shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity…thus requires that the universe cease to exist after finite proper time, which in turn implies that the universe must be closed in space, with the universe ending in a finite proper time at a final singularity

The problem is, a collapsing universe doesn’t have to be closed. But Frank seems to use the hypothesis of a closed universe to derive that the final singularity must be a single point.


What Krauss and Turner demonstrate is that empirical tests cannot tell us whether the universe is closed, flat, or open.

But unitarity requires that the universe end in a finite proper time, i.e., that the universe be closed. So while although empirical tests cannot tell us the fate of the universe, the laws of physics can.

As Dr. David Deutsch, the leading quantum physicist in the world and winner of the Institute of Physics' Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his invention of the quantum computer, says regarding the conservative nature of the Omega Point Theory:

"
Tipler makes the point that the science of cosmology has tended to study the past (indeed, mainly the distant past) of spacetime. But most of spacetime lies to the future of the present epoch. Existing cosmology does address the issue of whether the universe will or will not recollapse, but apart from that there has been very little theoretical investigation of the greater part of spacetime. In particular, the lead-up to the Big Crunch has received far less study than the aftermath of the Big Bang. Tipler sees the omega-point theory as filling that gap. I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted.

...

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the 'natural' view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.
""

(Both paragraphs quoted from Dr. Deutsch's book The Fabric of Reality [Penguin, 1997], Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html .)



(On the side: isn’t it odd that Krauss and Turner’s paper “Geometry and Destiny” doesn’t mention Tipler’s definitive proof that the universe is heading toward an “Omega Point” singularity).

A further difficulty with Tipler’s “proof” turns on his peculiar take on the Black-hole evaporation/Unitarity Paradox. Most investigators take this difficulty as a sign that GR or QFT or both need reworking. Tipler takes both general relativity and quantum field theory as correct and avoids the paradox by deducing the finite life-span of the cosmos. Unfortunately the evaporation/unitarity paradox is not the only contradiction between GR and QFT and the assumption of a cosmic life-span doesn’t render the two theories compatible.

Many researchers believe microscopic black holes were created during the big-bang and that most of these have already evaporated (in spite of the unitarity problem) long ago, though some of the larger ones might still be around to be detected. Some researchers (Jonathan Feng of MIT and Alfred Shapere at University of Kentucky) are attempting to detect microscopic black holes that are produced by violent cosmic ray collisions with our atmosphere. These holes would be so tiny they’d evaporate immediately (in spite of the unitarity problem) and could only be detected by the shape of the energy spectrum of their decay.

I have to say, I adore Frank Tipler in many ways. He’s written many provocative articles and has done some really first rate work. But he a long way from proving there was a conscious god who got lonely, broke itself into parcels and became the universe and that we are him/her.

General relativity and quantum mechanics are not known to be inconsistent. The obstacle in quantizing general relativity is the gauge problem of general covariance, a hard mathematical problem that no one has been able to solve, but this merely means that no one can do the maths, not that the maths are inconsistent.

[trish]

jamie:

What Krauss and Turner demonstrate is that empirical tests cannot tell us whether the universe is closed, flat, or open.

But unitarity requires that the universe end in a finite proper time, i.e., that the universe be closed. So while although empirical tests cannot tell us the fate of the universe, the laws of physics can.

On the contrary. I just read Krauss and Turner this morning. Among the several points they establish I wish to enumerate two:

1) it is possible for an open universe to collapse.
2) empirical tests may not be able to tell us whether the universe is closed, flat or open (though there are exceptions to this last point if the cosmological constant as well as the scaled energy density can be determined to sufficient accuracy and the latter is greater than 1/1000 of the present density.)

(1) still stands as an obstacle to Tipler's argument.

as for your argument from authority


As Dr. David Deutsch, the leading quantum physicist in the world and winner of the Institute of Physics' Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his invention of the quantum computer

it's just an argument by authority. David Deutsch is hardly THE leading quantum physicist in the world. Closer to the mark might be Steven Weinberg.

GR is a classical field theory. It is by definition inconsistent with QFT. It remains to be seen how much of GR can be saved after it is successfully quantitized or how much QFT must be modified to accommodate the quantization of GR (or both).

[trish]

something more suitable for HA:

[EdelweissFan]

This is what blows my mind:

Sometimes at night, I look up at the stars and think about what is happening. A star that could be thousands of light years away emitted photons thousands of years ago. These photons and the photons of other stars strike my eye and are focused on my retina.

My brain then constructs a model of the stars and their relative positions. WTF is this brain that it can do that?

And to think that a star so far away has a physical effect on me by reaching out its photons, ticking my retina and kicking some nerve impulses down the wire to my brain.

The universe is a vast cosmic machine, but our own brains are a vast universe detecting and modelling machine as well.

[trish]

flowers follow the Sun. moths (it is said) steer by the Moon. i wonder if there are inhabitants of Earth besides humans that physically (if not mentally) react to starlight?

flowering plants, in reacting to the Sun, changed the global paleolithic climate and redefined the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, nearly poisoning themselves out of existence. And now the animal kingdom is doing the same.

what blows my mind: that life can be sooo fragile that it may detect the light of stars from beyond the local galactic cluster and yet can effect such global consequences.

yeah, EdelweissFan, i second your emotion.