Two cosmological hypotheses

[bascule]

Primary hypothesis: The evolutionary process (and the order it garners) will eventually overcome chaos/spontaneously broken symmetries in shaping the future cosmos

 

Conjecture: Humanity and its descendants will able to anticipate/avoid any future cosmological events which would completely annihilate its existance AND/OR there is other sentient life in the universe which will do so (i.e. genes/memes have the potential for immortality, so let's briefly assume they are immortal)

 

Conjecture: Consciousness will control everything within the universe but will eventually encounter the unknowability of the universe's origin per Godel's incompleteness theorem

 

Secondary hypothesis:

 

The collective consciousness encounters the ultimate unknowability about the universe, deems the whole exercise pointless, and commits suicide, either by restoring the universe to a state of perfect symmetry (which must inevitably break spontaneously for whatever [unknowable] reason) or God elicits a CPT(and whatever else is significant)-symmetrical negation of the entire universe, ushering in a causal reversal in which the universe deconstructs itself and returns to a state of perfect symmetry (which spontaneously breaks again)

 

Given this model my two cosmological hypotheses would be:

 

1. Spacetime is a deterministic loop; the same events play out over and over again ad infinitum

 

2. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is non-deterministic and therefore every 'universe' born out of the breaking of perfect symmetry is chaotic and unique; therefore the universe is an enormous causal chain in which it is created and destroyed in an infinite number of ways

 

The bottom line (conjecture): Evolution is intrinsic to the structure of the universe. Consciousness will greedily consume more and more matter and produce more and more memes. Eventually it will spread to the point that it attains cosmological significance.

[[Tycho?]]

Uh huh. And what evidence do you have to back up your hypothoses?

[Ophiolite]

I'm with [Tycho?] on this one. Without a smattering of evidence this is equivalent to saying "I have a large beige armadillo-sequoia cross breed at the bottom of my garden, which has intense interest in piano sonatas and 12th century embroidery." Without the evidence this needs to be moved to pseudo-science. We await with interest.

[bascule]

'']Uh huh. And what evidence do you have to back up your hypothoses?

 

None. Everything is clearly stated as hypothetical/conjecture.

 

On a side note, the plural of hypothesis is hypotheses, not 'hypothoses'

 

I'm with [Tycho?'] on this one. Without a smattering of evidence this is equivalent to saying "I have a large beige armadillo-sequoia cross breed at the bottom of my garden, which has intense interest in piano sonatas and 12th century embroidery."

 

That sounds more like a boldface lie than a hypothesis...

 

Without the evidence this needs to be moved to pseudo-science.

 

So any unsubstantiated hypothesis is immediately pseudoscience? If that's how you feel go ahead and move the thread, but in my experience most cosmological theories are highly speculative...

[Spyman]

Interesting hypotheses, raises a lot of good questions...

 

Is it possible for life, (or something created by life), to eventually evolve so 'high' that controlling the final fate of the Universe will be possible ?

 

Will that community or 'thing' become so bored so it restarts/restores the Universe ?

 

Wouldn't there be any higher purposes and a new path for the next BB ?

(Instead of a chaotic spontaneous symmetry breaking.)

 

If that is possible, couldn't it make sure it survived ?

 

Is there then also a chance that some other 'life' would have enough knowledge and power to avoid destruction and survive through to the next Universe ?

 

Could every BB be an event that marks one small step in the evolution of the Universe ?

 

And what would the Universe be evolving into ?

[Ophiolite]

Uh huh. And what evidence do you have to back up your hypothoses?

None. Everything is clearly stated as hypothetical/conjecture.

My understanding is that a hypothesis must be based upon some kind of evidence. Not so for conjectures' date=' but you have identified these ideas, at least partially as hypotheses. (And I [b']am[/b] 100% with you when it comes to correct spelling and grammar.)

That sounds more like a boldface lie than a hypothesis...

IF you saw it playing Brahms Piano Sonata no 3, you wouldn't say that.

So any unsubstantiated hypothesis is immediately pseudoscience? If that's how you feel go ahead and move the thread, but in my experience most cosmological theories are highly speculative...

It does not need to be substantiated, but it needs to be based upon some evidence, or to be falsifiable in some way. Perhaps either or both of these possibilities apply: if so, please provide the data, or outline a test; otherwise, I maintain it belongs in pseudoscience.

I can't move it. I am a visitor here just like you, and like you just expressing an opinion.

I thoroughly agree with you on the speculative nature of much of cosmology. Much of this speculation is, in my opinion, at best philosophy (which is not to denigrate philosophy) and at worst pseudo-science: it is not, however, science. But even that is, generally, based upon a mountain of evidence - it's just that the authors of the conjectures have strayed very far out on the plains, so that the mountain is now a purple haze on the horizon.

In different words, you appear to have plucked your conjectures out of thin air: I doubt this is true. Therefore, what led you to these speculations? That is the root evidence I am asling you to present, even if only in summary form. Without that there really is nothing, for me at least, to grapple with.

[bascule]

The fundamental basis of all of this is symmetry, or rather the appearance of a fundamental lack of T-symmetry in the way the universe operates. I was merely speculating as to a possibility of how T-symmetry could be restored in the wake of the simultaneous rise of entropy (via the second law of thermodynamics) and order (via evolutionary processes).

 

I have no figures or substantive proof of this, but I think it can safely be said that the amount of entropy life processes must create to increase order is gradually decreasing as we grow increasingly efficient. The Von Neumann Universal Constructor, once implemented, will bring about a new age of efficiency in creating order.

 

One possible speculation from this is that once an entity emerging from the evolutionary process will eventually reach the "break even" point, perhaps eventually overcoming the second law of thermodynamics itself and generating spontaneous order for free. But that is, of course, a completely speculative extrapolation and has nothing more to do with the truth than the Laffer Curve.

 

Anyway, you're not going to conjole anything out of me that will make you happy. It's more a philosophical/metaphysical question than a scientific one.

[Nicholas]

Unkownability of the universe?

Or the unknowable God?