Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Kirtaner & Spardot's 420chan Wedding

To all guests, live viewers, and our Internet family, THANK YOU.
VODs will be edited soon, we are all so tired.
Wedding Gifts
fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
>>
Joseph-Louis Lagrange - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:47:12 EST ID:/FJQtAXr No.54394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54393

You're thinking of the Big Crunch.
>>
Thomas Gold - Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:43:08 EST ID:psUbi2cW No.54395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The Big Crunch doesn't necessarily mean another Big Bang though.
Look for the the Big Bounce, or the Cyclic model, OP.
Easy wiki-links because I'm lazy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
>>
Johan Galle - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:22:11 EST ID:GLF+hs85 No.57083 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i'm so fucking horny rn

jane, i want to get into your zone and yum you up for days
>>
Edmond Halley - Thu, 09 Nov 2017 19:01:53 EST ID:/PjoztBU No.57084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the oscillating universe theory, where the universe infinitely cycles between big bangs and crunches, makes the most sense to me. ill just believe that until something else is proven. i dont buy the idea of a big freeze
>>
Galileo Galilei - Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:29:32 EST ID:yzfSDg8q No.57093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57084
Yeah. Except time itself originated with the big bang, and it ends with the big freeze. How you gonna escape that?
>>
Mike Brown - Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:24:32 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57093

there is no big freeze. there is an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches. time is infinite.
>>
John Riccioli - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:37:15 EST ID:NWuHYIye No.57109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57094

How would you know that? Evidence we have now points to the opposite, we see distant galaxies accelerating away from us, and they're accelerating at a greater and greater rate as time passes. There's not enough gravitational force, even accounting for dark matter, for a big crunch to occur.

This is my understanding of the topic, anyway.
>>
Charles Bolton - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 20:17:33 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57109

there is a presumption that magical dark energy is causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate yet every experiment performed looking to confirm the existence of dark energy or even dark matter has come up empty handed. thus the cyclical model is supported by an equal amount of evidence. the whole "red-blue" shifted model is in serious question at this point
>>
Russel Hulse - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:43:51 EST ID:efSQObtJ No.57112 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57110
None of that justifies a big crunch model. If we're gonna posit something based on lack of evidence, I'd rather go with space fairies. They're cute.
>>
Charles Bolton - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:29:31 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512336571668.jpg -(32665B / 31.90KB, 1100x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57112

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2759-universe-might-yet-collapse-in-big-crunch/
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 23:36:09 EST ID:2O5lO8M8 No.57123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57112
Well I'm not going to make an argument for the Big Crunch because I don't think it will happen, it's Big Freezes all the way down. However, I would make an argument for their nonetheless being an infinite number of Big Bangs, and thus the universe having a cyclic quality without any need for a Big Crunch.

The argument for this is simple, one based on a priori logic rather than a posteriori empiricism, as well as the Copernican principle: our universe, apparently, arose from nothing at all into the universe we perceive today. If we believe in the Big Bang, we must minimally accept this. We must take nothing to mean really nothing, as extension in no qualities of any kind. In this way the moment immediately after the Big Freeze is the same as the moment before the Big Bang -- time ceases to exist for an infinite amount of non-time, because what time is is a measurement of change, and in nothing, there is no change at all.

Because we know it is possible for the universe to arise from nothing, and know it is going back into nothing, and we know that nothingness can exist for an infinite amount of time, it would be a violation of the Copernican principle to assume that our vantage point is the only time ever that nothingness would generate a universe. No, that would imply a violation of causality and us having a privileged perspective, so we must reject it.

If nothing really is nothing, and the universe can come from nothing but also inevitably goes into nothing, then there's nothing about nothing that can stop universes from infinitely eternally being formed out of it. Since there are an infinite number of universes, there will also be an infinite number of identical universes, eventually. Thus, cyclical universe.
>>
Jan Hendrik Oort - Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:52:12 EST ID:JrU5uOl/ No.57124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57123

like a pac-man screen
>>
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:00:03 EST ID:JaX78I2e No.57125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
>>
Henry Russell - Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:08:37 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57123
Not cyclical. Like a tree. Or a fractal. Self-similar.

Our universe dies into nothingness. Nothingness gives rise to new big bangs. These big bangs spawn new universes that die into nothingness.... etc. ad infinitum.
>>
William Lassell - Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:37:47 EST ID:xu+ta0+j No.57236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57235
If there are only a finite number of configurations which a given hubble volume can manifest (which is necessary, because there are a finite number of planck lengths within the hubble volume and a finite number of elementary particles & energies) then with an infinite number of alternate universes, eventually the same configuration will appear again (not only once, but an infinite number of times) since the number of possible hubble volume configurations is less than infinite. Each one of these manifestations is one complete 'cycle' although the length of cycles (i.e. the number of permutations between each recurrence of an identical configuration) would always vary.
>>
William de Sitter - Fri, 08 Jun 2018 21:12:09 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I was recently thinking about this following hypothesis (I'm sure I'm not the first who came up with it but wasn't able to find any established writing on the subject)
But you can find plenty of other people posting about this when you google
big rip quarks

Essentially it goes like this:
The expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart superclusters, galaxies, star systems, stars, molecules and eventually atoms.
So long so good.
But once it gets to a scale of a proton something interesting is bound to happen:
If you rip apart quarks the amount of energy which with they are bound together grows proportional to the distance.
If you put in enough "force" new quarks will be created eventually.
This is all fine and dandy if you are dealing with regular forces where the amount of energy required is the same as the amount of quarks "created"
But since dark energy is not bound by these constraints, as I understand it there would be a runaway effect where more and more quarks are generated by each proton.
And what would that then be, right a quark-gluon-plasma!

Essentially what this would boil down to is eventually every proton in the universe will become it's own big-bang and hence it's own universe.
>>
Roger Penrose - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:06:05 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57302 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57291
I think this idea is really interesting and would love for someone to actually develop it in a paper.

Here's my concern, as is always my concern whenever someone says a particle or whatever creates its own universe; where does the energy/matter come from? If this quark being ripped apart creates its own universe, with its own particles of all types including quarks, where did these quarks etc. come from? Are they actually physically smaller? (in which case we're stuck in the Incredible Eternally Shrinking Multiverse?) Or what? Is it actually creating the new universe or is it punching a hole to a different section of the M-brane (which might have the energy/particle supply), or something else?
>>
Antony Hewish - Sat, 04 Aug 2018 06:27:31 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57360 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I was thinking of time travel and what the existence of god means in the universe and my idea is that every conscious entity sentient or not is a part of the collective consciousness of god. The universe is a giant quantum computer with the planets and solar systems as its physical components. It's cubits. As above so below. The micro and the macro. Atoms are solar systems and vice versa. Planets electrons as electrons circling around a fission core. Every human is a node in the consciousness in god just as a single computer is a node to a cluster. String theory, how each and every possibility both has and hasn't happened. Perhaps we ride a wave of certainty while the choice we decided against is just a parallel branch universe. Now each and every other human has their own branches that intertwine with each others causality. So you and every other human in existence each make a decision on a clock cycle like a computer. On that clock cycle you can do or not do, they can do or not do. So the statistically there would be a universe where you chose yes and person b chose yes too. Another universe where you said yes and person b said no. And then another where you said no, you see where I am going with this right. So to time travel you don't just need a time and space, but you need a persons frequency since you are traveling to their timeline. Like if you are going in time to alter a decision that you made or an event that effected you then you are locking in on yourself. But if you wanted to say kill Hitler then you don't exist yet. And according to my theory there are billions of universes where Hitler did die and billions where he didn't and out of all those universes where he did, we are on this one. And oh yeah, imagine if there was a universe where he killed himself, but the rieche still fought and didn't loose. And if someone dies in your timeline you could still exist in his timeline, as the you that he sees. The you that made decisions that work with his timeline. Because it is possible that you and another person just have incompatible universes because of different events so they can't possibly exist in yours anymore. Also if you die you may just resume consciousness in the most directly similar universe to your alpha or main line. And you can't actually die. Eventually you move up to a higher wavelength altogether since we don't have eternally living ancestors. Once you evolve to that point you will meet them again, but when they evolve past your dimension they leave you, but aren't really gone since your just a node in the same cluster. They are just on another plane. Also heaven and hell is just the universe you create in your time in your humanly form. If you are a shitty person and shitty to others than that will reflect back onto you when you enter the next plane. And if you were great and then it will be a heavenly experience. And of course your worlds are still able to communicate and sync based on your shared experiences and emotions. And that is how we interact since we are just electricity and the physical realm is really just an illusion for how we interact in the metaphysical. We are the universe observing itself. The huge quantum computer of the universe is the body of god. The consciousness of god is a cluster of sentient nodes. Universes expand infinitely while others perish. This cycle of death and birth recycles the universe like a phoenix.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Sun, 05 Aug 2018 20:42:46 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57361 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1533516166298.jpg -(91139B / 89.00KB, 728x546) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57360
>>So to time travel you don't just need a time and space, but you need a persons frequency since you are traveling to their timeline.
Just curious, how might we go about doing that? If by frequency you mean some sort of 'quantum wavelength' of their particular divergent quantum worldline, you should know that we've never found such a thing, or if we have, we didn't know that's what it was, nor know any way to change it even in a small space to say send a person or craft to another 'worldline.' Although, if someone did have such a technology, human or alien, they would be able to eternally cover the tracks of any action they ever took, and so would be utterly invisible and appear to just be part of the natural workings of the universe, if that was their desire.

One other thing; how do you account for the fact that not only sentient beings are quantum observers, but that inanimate objects also perform quantum decoherence of quantum phenomena as they enter the macro scale? Does your hypothesis include some concept of animism/panpsychism?

Lastly, I wouldn't lean on the 'solar systems are atoms' angle. The Bohr atom of the model is just a conceptual tool. Electrons really aren't anything like planets but are actually like moving fields of electronic potentiality. And uh, saying something is 'god' isn't a scientific statement. It might mean a lot of things under certain circumstances, but its not a technically defined concept from a cosmologist's standpoint (and what you're positing here is a cosmological theory.)
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 07 Aug 2018 22:09:52 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57383 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57361
I know that there are plenty of flaws in my theory. It's just something I pondered watching Steins; Gate. As far as inanimate objects I think it would depend on the elements present and the bonds of the molecules. Like a rock can be pulled from a pile of rocks. That rock as a whole is a bunch of elements and molecular structures. It is set apart from the next identical rock because of the fact that all of it's molecules are holding strong (excuse that I can't think of a proper term). It may have once been part of a larger bolder, but an event occurred, broke it, and then separated it into an individual and unique rock. I mean I guess that doesn't cover what would happen if you tried traveling to a time before it broke off, if you were traveling back using that rock as your target. But I guess if it's signature comes from it's atomic structure than it's signature could be traced back even when it was a part of another whole, but that it's signature is just a part of the larger signature (i guess like in PGP how you sign your secondary keys with a primary key. And it would work hierarchical with the planet as a whole as the master key and every thing that's a part of the earth being signed keys and single atoms being the lowest key. Yes I know I am full of shit at this point. But hey.
Anyway with the solar systems as Atoms, and defining anything as GOD is more metaphorical than literal. Like the universe may not be 'GOD', but it could be what we interpret to be GOD. And with the atom theory, they may not be literally atoms, but the representation of another system, larger system, that may be comperable to what we define an atom as. Like it is just a part of a larger system. I don't literally think that if you zoom out far enough that the solar systems will be atoms and then keep zooming out and find that it's a water molecule. And zoom out more to find a giant lake. But more or less comparing something we don't know and may never know to something that we do know and observe regularly. I guess this is similar to the theory in Animal House, from the professor. Or Men In Black when they have marble sized galaxies.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:05:31 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57383
Just occured to me. The best way to describe my theory is that the universe is a computer. Or quantum computer. It access memory via stored addresses. All mater in the universe would need to have an address space and everything is being rendered by the quantum computer. This computers kernel, OS, services, daemons and every aspect of the computers running operations is consciousness while matter is the hardware that carries out the physical work and transfers kinetic and thermal energy. This quantum computer is what we would define as GOD. And we are all nodes. We are a part of this system. Virtual Machines. All doing our calculations and rendering. Experiencing and observing. We are altering and just doing our part.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:07:14 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57385 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57384
Full disclosure. I am from /diss so if my writing goes from educated and scientific to stoner and just sci fi then that is the reasoning. I am not on the same wavelength as many.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:58:49 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57386 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57385
From a psychological standpoint. I am me. I know I exist. I think, I dream. I wish. I personally know of my existence whatever it may be organic or even artificial I exist. What about you. Do you really exist? Does any of this even exist. Obviously it would by folly of me to believe that, but can't rule that possibility out.
Now I wonder if some people exist like I do and are others just an illusion. programmed and binary. A part of the system, but not active.
Maybe like in an MMORPG where you have NPCs and human characters. An excellent anime that portrays this is Log Horizon. You have the real characters that are sentient and then there are NPC populants that are so humanistic. Advanced AI. And can this sentience be achieved by a lesser intelligence such as an AI and animals.
Basically when you see all this mind washing mass media and are being programmed by your overloards. Senselessly driving us apart over so much anger and aggression is a part of the destabilization of the universe as a whole. A giant mental meltdown spreading like wildfire across the globe from politics, gender issues, land rights, pollutants. Essentially in this sense GOD is having a mental break down.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 03:30:44 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57387 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1533713444244.jpg -(63991B / 62.49KB, 432x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57386
You should check out 'Programming the Universe' by Seth Lloyd. It's a cosmologist's treatment of the universe as a quantum computer. Gonna give you a couple things to think about (although all of this is probably kinda off topic for this board. /pss/ would get you more traction.)

Are you familiar with the concept of a Turing test? Essentially the idea is anything that is capable of giving answers in such a way that it appears to be sentient to another being that is sentient must also itself be sentient to some degree. So if other people are just programmed illusions, the fact that you can't instantly tells that means that at least whatever controls them is itself sentient. I think also assuming that some other people may be p-zombies is uh, a potentially dangerous path.

If the universe is a computer, and is also a digital computer at its base (there are arguments for this, mainly that space itself is quantized at the Planck scale) and all human consciousnesses are generated from that simulation, then the universe becomes susceptible to what's called the 'Omega Simulation' hypothesis. This will take a couple of steps, follow me here...

Step one; the simulation hypothesis: really briefly, futurist philosopher Nick Bostrom has this logical dichotomy following from these theorems: the human mind, whatever else it may be, is a phenomena generated in some way by the mind, such that some day it will be possible for us to create a simulation of a mind that is indistinguishable from a natural human consciousness (which would necessarily then be sentient, referencing Turing again.) Now, because this simulation would be on a computer, it would follow the law of accelerating technological improvement (of which the famous 'Moore's law' is but one sub-type.) This means that the number of possible simulations all the computers in the world could run of human minds would grow exponentially over time, as information technologies do. Quickly the number of simulated human minds and world histories would vastly outstrip all real human minds and histories. Finally, remembering the Copernican principle, that we should assume the laws of the universe are homogeneous and that we are not a special observe, the odds are that all of us are in one of the simulated realities, rather than in the 'one' real one. Or, in the other possibility in the dichotomy, human consciousness isn't computable. That's part one...

Step two, a note about quantum states that will be important later. Under some conceptions of a quantum computer, the Eigenstate (the 'super-position' of the possible states) of a quantum simulation of a physical system, if it modeled the quantum states of all parts of that physical system, it would actually *be* that physical system. The corollary of this is that if the universe is a quantum computer, it is both the 'hardware' and the 'software' at the same time -- a quantum computer calculating the total state of a universe *is* that universe (at least theoretically.)

Step three, the Omega point. Without belaboring a bunch of unnecessary historical details, the idea is that if computing power grows exponentially through time then even as the universe comes to an end, there may be certain ways to increase our efficiency of using the remaining energy such that, near the end of the universe in an entropic sense, the rate at which our universal computer computes increases faster than the rate entropy slows it down, meaning it could compute an infinite number of things in a finite amount of time.

Tying these three things together; say humans 100 or a 1000 years from now are simulating our world. There could be billions such ancestor simulations, which means almost certainly our world is one of those. But that's forgetting that those people too are subject to the Copernican principle, they themselves are more likely to be in the simulation of the even more advanced beings from 1000s of years into their future, who are themselves even more likely to be in the vastly huger simulations of even later civilizations, ad infinitum.

If all this is true and follows soundly, that means we are almost certainly already in the computer at the end of time, which is calculating infinite universes, which creates infinite universes. The very reason we experience weird quantum effects may be because our universe is a simulation rather than the 'real' one -- but there almost certainly is no basement 'real' one, it probably loops back on itself, since again, anything that computed that on a quantum level would actually be that. It's turtles all the way down man.

I think that, if this is true, your theory (which is pretty close to what one would call Idealism philosophically) would certainly hold. However, taking advantage of that system would then require a depth of quantum understanding we just don't have yet.
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 03:32:20 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57386
>>Essentially in this sense GOD is having a mental break down.
Is he having a mental breakdown? Or is it all quite intentional? After all, we are the only way he can look at himself.

And as an inhabitant of /diss/ myself, I definitely know where you're coming from on the 'we're all one parts of a divided consciousness' angle. It's more true than it appears. nb
>>
Daniel Kirkwood - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 03:34:44 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57387
>>the human mind, whatever else it may be, is a phenomena generated in some way by the mind
Obviously, I meant to say phenomena generated by the brain, not mind. Last dp I swear
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 05:15:28 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57390 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hopefully one of our universes provide the necessary data to help the real physical world compute what it needs to save reality. I will do my part.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 21:49:39 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I want to point out examples of universal synchronicity. essentially in the pizza shop I work in there are plenty of menu items. Some sell regularly and some are only ordered once and a while. Why is it that 4 or 5 people all order one of our less popular dishes all in the same day. When I deliver to the same regulars, then suddenly we get a bunch of new randoms that aren't as predictable as the regular new customers. Of course various local events would attribute to that. But one day after work I was sitting with my mom and she was watching tv. An antiquing show. They mentioned the name Patterson because the item was crafted by a Patterson just as I was scrolling through FB and saw my friend Patterson posting about his cock. (Rooster, and double entandre he happens to be gay). Anyway, syncronicity when multiple unrelated and irreverent and supposedly just coincidence.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Wed, 08 Aug 2018 22:01:16 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also dejavue. I have had dreams as a child then experienced them in reality. Small things like being in a friend of a family members yard rolling a ball. The very specific ball, bushes, lighting and everything seemed to be a repeat. Pulling into a garage with a buddy after a smoke ride with a certain song in my head. Being snowy like a dark cavern had a video game feel to it and also felt like I had experienced it before even though I had only been driving for so long and smoking for not very long either. I was still young. The same dream of being a toddler and looking to the sky and seeing everything black out like in the harry potter movie. No stars, no lights. Then the clouds make way for a ufo over our pool. I have memories of being in my attic during this event seeing from the sky window the ufo piercing the clouds and us all going out to the back yard to check it out. I remember being in a replication of my living room, but looking out the large bay window at a planet earth. This is my oldest childhood memory and I keep recalling it. So vividly. From a time in my life where my imagination and attention to detail was way to underdeveloped to be able to comprehend such events. I just can't explain some of these experiences I have had.
>>
Hannes Alven - Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:06:19 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57392
Sorry man, I feel where you're coming from but this is way off topic, if mods weren't asleep these posts would probably already be deleted. Repost on /x/ or /pss/ and we can chat out your synchronicity theory, sounds interesting. Cheers m8.
>>
Arno Penzias - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:02:39 EST ID:78FE/y/Y No.57410 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well the only reason I thought this was the right place was because of the fate of the Universe question. I know my ideas are all over the place, but yeah I guess this is a scientific board and not an occult or paranormal corner of the internet. My approach is more philosophical rather than quantifiable science. But one thing we do have in common is that we are pondering the many mysteries of the universe.
>>
Hannes Alven - Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:36:54 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57410
>> But one thing we do have in common
I agree with your occult theories! I was the one posting about occult science earlier. I just also want to follow the board's rules, and have been yelled at here for talking about the paranormal so much I have internalized it. Seriously, repost on /pss/ and we can chat about it
>>
Vesto Slipher - Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:46:07 EST ID:b0wvOCbD No.57429 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57391
>Of course various local events would attribute to that
You should consider that there is no reason to assume there is some other form of influence other than cause and effect creating these synchronized events. You say there is universal synchronicity but why can't it just be that we lack the ability to measure and connect the cause and effect leading to these occurrences and thus it looks like an unrelated coincidence/synchronicity when in reality it is just a logical playing out of a series of connected events?

I think that is an important distinction because if you write off a scenario as "coincidence" or "universal synchronicity" then you limit your ability to understand why and how things happen which limits your control of your life. Everything that occurs on Earth can be explained through observation and logic because that's how the physical world works. Even if something has its origins in spiritual/immaterial reality, it has to be expressed in our reality through observable and measurable processes.
>>
Robert Wilson - Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:37:04 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57430 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57429
I think you're misunderstanding what is generally implied by synchronicity. I'm not that poster so I don't know exactly what they meant, but saying something is synchronic doesn't deny that it is happening through/due to a confluence of logical factors -- in fact, it is highlighting it. It is the convergence of 'meaninglessness' in the stochastic unfolding of events (through empirically knowable processes) with the sudden alignment of patterns of meaning that, of course, only humans (or other sentient, meaning-making life) could see that we call a synchronicity. It is the irony, in a sense, between the meaninglessness of the cosmos and the hyper-meaningfulness of the human soul.

Now if you think your corn flakes contain messages from Arcturus in some *literal* sense, you've obviously gone completely insane. But in the sense that both the shape of Arcturus and the arrangement of your cornflakes both emerge from identical shape our universe's laws like a holographic fractal and are thus in some sense 'the same' then there is undeniably 'synchronicity' between your cereal and a distant star.

All apparent patterns are apophenia, even those that are fundamental to science. If you can grasp why this is the case, you can actually understand the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of science at large, rather than having to trust it like a dogma.
>>
Christiaan Huygens - Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:49:56 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57302
Hai, sorry for the late response.
> where does the energy/matter come from? If this quark being ripped apart creates its own universe, with its own particles of all types including quarks, where did these quarks etc. come from? Are they actually physically smaller?

The newly created quarks would come from whatever amount of dark energy it takes to create them.
Which means essentially from my understanding of physics "from nothing" or slightly better "we don't know yet, but we know it's there"

Hence that is what the popular explanation of where dark energy comes from is. The amount of dark energy in the universe grows, based on observation, but not from any apparent source.
That is just my feeble attempt at reconciling the existence of dark energy somehow.
By that extent this "protons will spawn their own universe" hypothesis is just a way to say for me: "Perhaps dark energy doesn't mean everything has to go to shit."
>>
Edmond Halley - Thu, 16 Aug 2018 18:53:04 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57432 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57431
Well that's a relief. That's pretty much exactly my take on the situation too. It's refreshing to hear someone be so frank about what dark energy "is" and what we really "know" about it.

The apparent effect of dark energy certainly is some natural force and is real, but we have no idea what it is or even if it is a discrete 'thing' or a property of some other laws of nature (we hardly even 'understand' what normal energy is.) My intuition tells me that the only place that could store the elementary substance (strings, or whatever) that make up universe is the dimension that what we conceive of as the universe topographically rests inside of. (Hence mentioning the m-brane.)

Like, if we were flatlanders that lived on a sheet of paper, it would seem preposterous to us that there would be whole other sheets of paper, merely because our definition of what 'everything' is is so vanishingly small that we have no way to conceptualize that our sheet of paper comes from whole reams, and that there is a (virtually or perhaps literally) endless supply of forest (especially if, tellingly, the fragments of paper, after they are all used up, are returned to the soil.)

So yes, I 100% agree that people who claim that dark energy necessarily means the universe will end in some chilling scenario don't really understand what physics and cosmology is and what the state of play within it is, as the number of possible explanations are as numerous as potential physical models we could dream up. This is why I think it is deadly for science in a global sense to double down on dark energy (and thus ultimately, LCDM as the standard model) without more empirical data. We are essentially reasoning in a vacuum, no pun intended.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.