Caarnji

Surely not, since nature would have big problems creating sustained lifeforms who kill them selfs by a one time denial of existence.

There is a problem with this argument, because you bring God into it, which is a matter of theology and philosophy. Sean Carroll was arguing about the human framework of reality as we have it nowadays, which has nothing to do with the existence of God in what manner whatsoever. And with adding on the above i can make a statement on the topic: Differencing between belief and knowledge as agnostics do is from a logical standpoint a more truthful to human reality approach, than trying to prove something based on -> (individual) beliefs based on -> constructed truths , as atheists/christians tend to do. On the other hand that doesn't say whoever has more faith, which you cant determine in a philosophical manner, anyway. You could try do that with a neurological measurement in an experiment, but the forum has no means to do that

Not sure why you need a orbit for the light, since: If the light would pull of an constant orbit around your model, than we would have visible traces of this phenomena in form of amassed electromagnetic radiation/photons etc. from this light which would come from *nowhere*. I like that model tough from a artistic thinking perspective tough (looks cool, in my head =) ) What i wonder is the means how matter would *fall* back to that point, and how it´s getting into that loose orbit. Since gravitational pull wears of in Einsteins relativity theory and the *dark energy* how we call it that lets the space surf in the universe with the speed as we observe would have to wear off at a point for that to happen, which would be just another strange mystery. Only reason i can think of is dark energy and that hyper black hole must be interconnected somehow for that to happen, but that now goes beyond my logical comprehension, so i stop there.