The Universal Fact-Meal

[MultipleTentacles]

I was conceptualizing and reconceptualizing... analyzing and reanalyzing... thinking and rethinking the question of the universe. Please note that this thread is about what I thought, not what other people have considered to be true. My facts may be inaccurate.

What do I mean by "the universe?" I mean the scientific universe. According to what is apparently a popular theory, space is not infinite -- it is finite but unbounded. Kinda like the area between the x-axis and a hyperbola. Finite, but unbounded.

Matter may well be made of energy. Finite, small units of energy that are neither created nor destroyed. Finite.

Okay. Now here's the thing. I believe we are made of the universe. End of story. No extra ghostly soul floating around in metaphysics-land telling us what to do. Our bodies, and our minds, are made of universe-stuff. What happens when the universe dies? Well, when the universe was born, it appears to have been a singularity. Then it big-banged.

Now black holes are of course singularities. For a while, I thought that perhaps other universes may be inside these black holes. However, this doesn't seem to be logical. If they were, then matter must somehow be scalable. What I mean is this: black holes occupy a certain amount of space, and they have a certain amount of mass. If there are universes inside them, that mass must somehow equal the mass of the entire universe. But it obviously doesn't -- it only equals the mass of the black hole. Similarly, the space inside the hole could only occupy as much space as the hole in our space. How could it somehow be smaller than our space, yet the same size as our space?

But get this. Supermassive black holes are supposed to get larger and larger until they gobble up everything in the universe. Now think about that. Our universe came from a singularity. Eventually, these large singularities will gobble up our universe. Thus, it seems to make sense in a way that at some point, another universe will appear inside the lucky supermassive black hole that gets to gobble up the entire universe.

Now it seems to me entirely logical that since energy waves are neither created nor destroyed, they have points of convergence at regular intervals. It seems everything is made of energy and space. Combine these two scenarios -- that energy repeats and that supermassive black holes eat the universe -- we get the idea that the entire universe repeats itself. Incessantly, unfailingly. Perfectly. It's just a rhythmic converging ripple machine. An endless cycle of samsara.

Why is this not a pessimistic thought?

I have a hunch it isn't for this reason: when I was laying in bed coming up with this idea, I got the feeling, "whoa. I got it." It was like eating, digesting, and defecating a particularly large fact-meal in a single instant. How does this make it not a pessimistic thought? Because, if I have the ability to comprehend a finite, ever-repeating universe, there must be some escape from the mindless repetition. It is like the idea that the same word can be said twice, but with an entirely different meaning. Thus it seems the universe may repeat itself infinite times, but with entirely different meanings. Also, I think the meanings improve.

This, I think, is what Buddhists talk about when they talk about "clear light." It is as though we are all players in this theater of existence, under close watch by the boss-man (mara). Yet skillfully, we can sneak secret messages to one another nobody else (meaning, no mara) sees. These secret messages are clear light -- light that is non-light.

What do you think of that?

[schrodinger]

Thus it seems the universe may repeat itself infinite times, but with entirely different meanings. Also, I think the meanings improve.


“improve” is a relative term. What significance can it have in infinity? What significance can anything have in infinity? :huh:

[MultipleTentacles]

“improve” is a relative term. What significance can it have in infinity? What significance can anything have in infinity? :huh:

Well, just because something changes some amount in relationship to infinity, that doesn't mean that just because it is related to infinity therefore nothing has changed. Also, I'm not sure it is related to infinity so much anyway. If I'm at all correct, the universe is finite.

I think things have relationship to each other in infinity. And when one reaches enlightenment, one loses all notions of significance anyway.

[the_aphid]

Well, when the universe was born, it appears to have been a singularity. Then it big-banged.

Now black holes are of course singularities. For a while, I thought that perhaps other universes may be inside these black holes. However, this doesn't seem to be logical. If they were, then matter must somehow be scalable. What I mean is this: black holes occupy a certain amount of space, and they have a certain amount of mass. If there are universes inside them, that mass must somehow equal the mass of the entire universe. But it obviously doesn't -- it only equals the mass of the black hole. Similarly, the space inside the hole could only occupy as much space as the hole in our space. How could it somehow be smaller than our space, yet the same size as our space?
Interesting thoughts MultipleTentacles, but I'd just like to suggest some ideas which might provide you with another way of looking at this. A new way in which you can re-re-conceptualize this idea. This isn't to say your facts are inaccurate, certainly the scenario you are describing is essentially the big crunch, in which everything that sprang forth from a singularity eventually collapses under the force of gravity into yet another singularity, resulting in yet another big bang, and thus an Oscillatory Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe). Firstly, I'd like to suggest that perhaps the conservation of matter and energy is not exactly true. It is now known that on the quantum level particles pop in and out of existence all the time, they just tend to equal out as to suggest there is an overall conservation of matter and energy in our universe. However, if this quantum 'bubbling' is offset by the smallest fraction, over a period of umpteen billion years, then this law of conservation of matter and energy goes out the window.

Secondly, you say that it doesn't seem logical that there could be a universe within a black hole. However this is a readily believed possibility amongst theorists. There is a possibility that there is a symmetrical counterpart of a black hole, known as a white hole. Basically the black hole would act as a portal 'gobbling' up matter from our universe and 'spewing' it out into another, likely within another dimension of space and time, or perhaps even somewhere else within our very our boundless universe. Thus matter would not need to be 'scalable'. In fact, the birth of our massive universe could be explained as the explosion of a white hole connected to a black hole within an even more massive universe in another dimension. The supermassive black holes that are believed to be at the center of every galaxy within our universe could each be a portal to other universes.

There are truly an infinite number of possibilities, but I have to agree with Schrodinger, that every possible state of existence within an infinite spectrum of possible states of existence is neither 'better' or 'worse' than the next. Sure one of these hypothetical universes might not allow for the formation of earth-like planets and thus the evolution of earth-like life, but what is yielded from their unique fundamental physical characteristics simply could not be compared to our universe.
But get this. Supermassive black holes are supposed to get larger and larger until they gobble up everything in the universe. Now think about that. Our universe came from a singularity. Eventually, these large singularities will gobble up our universe. Thus, it seems to make sense in a way that at some point, another universe will appear inside the lucky supermassive black hole that gets to gobble up the entire universe.Indeed. As already mentioned, this certainly is a possibility. However, another one would be the possibility of the 'Big Rip'. This is becoming even more popular in light of the evidence of an increasingly expanding universe. It suggests, that eventually the attractive forces (which hold together everything from atoms to galaxies) will be overcome by the expanse of homogeneous dark energy pulling the material universe beyond its limits, cooling and decoupling everything, leaving behind a gaping void which was once a plentiful and energetic universe.
Combine these two scenarios -- that energy repeats and that supermassive black holes eat the universe -- we get the idea that the entire universe repeats itself. Incessantly, unfailingly. Perfectly. It's just a rhythmic converging ripple machine. An endless cycle of samsara.

Why is this not a pessimistic thought?Well, because it suggests an ever-lasting existence, in some form or another. There is a reason why many religions encourage belief in some form of an eternal existence, either in a blissful afterlife, or via rebirth/reincarnation. To many, it is a comforting thought.

[j000han]

Interesting thoughts MultipleTentacles,
>
it doesn't seem logical that there could be a universe within a black hole. However this is a readily believed possibility amongst theorists. There is a possibility that there is a symmetrical counterpart of a black hole, known as a white hole. Basically the black hole would act as a portal 'gobbling' up matter from our universe and 'spewing' it out into another, likely within another dimension of space and time, or perhaps even somewhere else within our very our boundless universe. Thus matter would not need to be 'scalable'. In fact, the birth of our massive universe could be explained as the explosion of a white hole connected to a black hole within an even more massive universe in another dimension. The supermassive black holes that are believed to be at the center of every galaxy within our universe could each be a portal to other universes.

There are truly an infinite number of possibilities, but I have to agree with Schrodinger, that every possible state of existence within an infinite spectrum of possible states of existence is neither 'better' or 'worse' than the next. Sure one of these hypothetical universes might not allow for the formation of earth-like planets and thus the evolution of earth-like life, but what is yielded from their unique fundamental physical characteristics simply could not be compared to our universe.
>
There is a reason why many religions encourage belief in some form of an eternal existence, either in a blissful afterlife, or via rebirth/reincarnation. To many, it is a comforting thought.

So…
now you are enlightened what are you going to do?
Ie.
If you were asked to draw a map of the ‘world’ in such a way that this map
includes a comprehensible sketch of what your position and/ or role is.
And what the position of others (relative to your position) are (or could be)?
Then..
how would you go about this?
Iow. what part do you think that you/them play in this human drama?
What do you think is your/their role as a Budhissatva?

[^note neither the role nor the body of a Budhissatva is gender specific^]
hint:
[Does perhaps the Logos of the Universal mind also apply to the process of civilization?]
Now..
Just so that you know (if you didn’t allready), Nirwana is the actual Budhist Hell.
It becomes apparent when you listen to the words in a song of a band that has labeled itself as
Nirwana.
[Hello, hello here we are,
now,
E
ntertain us.]
So…
Where does the fire of the Olympic flame go,
when it’s no longer fueled?
Where did that fuel come from?
:loveyou:

[Flux]

Very interesting! As Aphid said, scientists have hypothesised about pocket universes and white holes. In particular, Stephen Hawking was one of those to theorize the existance of pocket universes, although I believe he has since found evidence for his to be unlikely (this evidence being quite beyond myself to understand or explain.)

Some quick factual corrections however. First of all, black holes do not have a size per se. As a singularity, it is infinitely small and infinitely dense. What changes in size is the event horizon, the spherical boundry past which nothing comes back, the "point of no return."

Here's how is works. Any mass, such as Earth, has an escape speed--the speed that an object must be moving to escape the objects gravitational pull. The equation for this is Sqrt(2GM/r) where G is Newton's gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object that is being escaped from, and r is the radius of the object being escaped from. As you can see, the smaller the radius, the greater the escape speed and the greater the mass the greater the escape speed. That means that if the mass stays the same and the radius decreases, the escape speed increases. But if the speed required to escape from the object exceeds the speed of light, nothing can escape--it has become a black hole. This also explains why they are created--stars, keeping the same mass, reduce in radius as they collapse, occasionally causing the star to have an escape speed greater than the speed of light.

This also explains the existance of the event horizon. Lets say that you were a long way away (r distance) from a black hole. As you calculate the escape speed, you need to take into account the distance r between yourself and the center of the black hole. The result will probably be less than the speed of light. However, as you get closer to the black hole, the number r (radius in the equation) will get smaller, so the escape speed will be faster. To find out the distance from the singularity that the event horizon is, set the escape speed equal to the speed on light and solve for r.

Also, although black holes do get larger as they gain mass, it is unlikely that a single black hole, no matter how massive, could swallow the entire universe. First of all, it is not true that massive black holes suck things toward them. If our Sun all of a sudden collapsed into a singularity, we would continue to orbit it as we are (although we would be alot colder!). Also, many supermassive black holes are at the center of the galaxies that happen to be speeding away from us fast enough that they may one day be causally disconected from us. I'm not quite sure what the science is behind that, but if it's causally disconected to us, it certainly couldn't suck us up. I think it's entirely possible that everything gets sucked into black holes eventually though, though maybe not all into the same hole.

Personally, I disagree that the comprehension of the endless repetition of universe (if it does so repeat) in any way entails that there is an escape from repitition. Not that I don't disbelieve in repitition or escape, however.

Aphid: Actually, the law of conservation of mass is consistant with the Quantumn mechanical notion of vacume fluctuation, which result in the spontaneous "appearance" and "dissappearance" of particles. Heisenbergs uncertaintly principle dictates an uncertainty relation between position and momentum. However, that is not the only uncertainty relation. There is a corresponding uncertainty relation between the amount of energy in a location and the time at which the energy is there. This means that even in deep space, probabilities of energy being in the supposedly empty space is constantly fluctuation. Since mass is equivalent to energy, by E=MC^2, sometimes the already existant energy can manifest as an unstable particle for a short time before the probabilities fluctuate again. I'm a bit vague on how all this works, but I've heard it to be entirely consistance with the conservation of mass-energy. The conservation of mass is broken, but the conservation of mass-energy is not.

[MultipleTentacles]

Nirwana is the actual Budhist Hell.

I think you're wrong about this. Nirvana has fears associated with it, but if you escape into Nirvana, you are free from all fear and suffering. I think when referring to Buddhist concepts, it's best to use Buddhist scripture and not a rock band -- I'm not sure the band Nirvana had anything to do with Buddhism.

If you were asked to draw a map of the ‘world’ in such a way that this map includes a comprehensible sketch of what your position and/ or role is. And what the position of others (relative to your position) are (or could be)? Then.. how would you go about this?

Methodologically. :D (However I would first require a huge intellect -- I don't think my current one would suffice.)

Personally, I disagree that the comprehension of the endless repetition of universe (if it does so repeat) in any way entails that there is an escape from repitition. Not that I don't disbelieve in repitition or escape, however.

I disagree. If you have the equation, x=y, you cannot refer to that equation from within the equation. You have to come up with a z, and say z refers to the equation x=y. Thus, if there were no "escape" from the universe, the mind would necessarily not be able to comprehend anything at all, since it would be acting as a variable in the equation, and not referring to anything. But we know from experience that the mind can in fact refer to things, fairly accurately. How could it do this if it could not separate itself from the equation to some extent?

There are truly an infinite number of possibilities, but I have to agree with Schrodinger, that every possible state of existence within an infinite spectrum of possible states of existence is neither 'better' or 'worse' than the next. Sure one of these hypothetical universes might not allow for the formation of earth-like planets and thus the evolution of earth-like life, but what is yielded from their unique fundamental physical characteristics simply could not be compared to our universe.

Well, there are conceivably infinite possibilities. That doesn't mean there necessarily are infinite possibilities. I'm not 100% sure there are infinite possibilities in the strictest sense. I could be wrong about this. Perhaps there are infinite possibilities, however it seems as though meaning has some measure of existence. I just don't know, actually.

However I do think that the very fact of our consciousness implies the unborn and unconditioned, i.e. some measure of existence outside of this universe. The fact that my mind has feelings of existence implies as much. We have existence, call it E. Then, in addition, we have the mind pointing to existence, call it M, saying "this is existence." This necessarily means there is more than existence. There is E+M.

[Flux]

I disagree. If you have the equation, x=y, you cannot refer to that equation from within the equation. You have to come up with a z, and say z refers to the equation x=y. Thus, if there were no "escape" from the universe, the mind would necessarily not be able to comprehend anything at all, since it would be acting as a variable in the equation, and not referring to anything. But we know from experience that the mind can in fact refer to things, fairly accurately. How could it do this if it could not separate itself from the equation to some extent?

There are few things more precarious than trying to draw deep philosophical consequenses from mathematical knowledge, mostly due to the precise nature of mathematics. Mathematics is an abstraction, and thus has no inherent connection with any particular part of the world. Your argument seems to rest on analogy, where you consider the mind a "variable" and the universe as an equation. I think that this comparison is fundementally mistaken, as things like minds and universe are things of experience, and equations are entirely abstracted from experience. In sort, I ask you how in the world the universe could be an equation, or a mind a variable? Certainly the mind could be represented by a variable, or the world described by an equation, but that is something else entirely from being a variable or equation.

[MultipleTentacles]

There are few things more precarious than trying to draw deep philosophical consequenses from mathematical knowledge, mostly due to the precise nature of mathematics. Mathematics is an abstraction, and thus has no inherent connection with any particular part of the world. Your argument seems to rest on analogy, where you consider the mind a "variable" and the universe as an equation. I think that this comparison is fundementally mistaken, as things like minds and universe are things of experience, and equations are entirely abstracted from experience. In sort, I ask you how in the world the universe could be an equation, or a mind a variable? Certainly the mind could be represented by a variable, or the world described by an equation, but that is something else entirely from being a variable or equation.

First of all, I think mathematics came about because of the way the world works. It may be that mathematics explains more about the way our brains work than the way the universe works. But are our brains not part of the universe?

I think the underlying assumptions I'm making is that the conceivable universe is a system. This, I believe, is a good conceptualization of the universe as postulated in my original post. I think the conceivable universe is a system, by virtue of it's being conceivable. However, my point was to say that the conceivable is not all there is, because of the fact of factual intentionality (being able to observe relevant facts). Can a computer program be written which understands the nature of the computer by observation? I think not. Therefore, if we can understand the nature by which the observable universe computes, which I believe it has been proven that we can, then it follows that the universe's observable structure is not all that exists. That was my whole point all along.

[GantzBall]

But get this. Supermassive black holes are supposed to get larger and larger until they gobble up everything in the universe. Now think about that. Our universe came from a singularity. Eventually, these large singularities will gobble up our universe. Thus, it seems to make sense in a way that at some point, another universe will appear inside the lucky supermassive black hole that gets to gobble up the entire universe.

Now it seems to me entirely logical that since energy waves are neither created nor destroyed, they have points of convergence at regular intervals. It seems everything is made of energy and space. Combine these two scenarios -- that energy repeats and that supermassive black holes eat the universe -- we get the idea that the entire universe repeats itself. Incessantly, unfailingly. Perfectly. It's just a rhythmic converging ripple machine. An endless cycle of samsara.
The oscillating theory would not work because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.