My Personal Thoughts on Death and the Universe

[Lucius E.E]

Over the past few years I have spent some time postulating what might happen after death.

Sure this is a question that comes up within the realms of philosophy and science quite often, but I have always found religion and the belief in a deity to be rather dull and unproven.

Not to offend anyone who may be religious on the forum.

I have nothing against the belief in a deity I'm a strong atheist myself however.

Now onto my thoughts, just looking to stir up some friendly discussion.

I believe there are three possible beliefs as to the beginning and end of the Universe, and what occurs after death.

A. Linear

B. Eternal

C. Turtles all the way down

After much thought I have come to the conclusion that these are the only possibilities.

Please allow me to explain as briefly as I can.

When I say "existence" I do not mean the Universe itself. I mean everything that may exist "outside" of it as well(Quantum Vacuum, Multiverse, Virtual Particles, etc)

Linear -

In a linear form of existence ultimately nothing would need to repeat and while the Universe itself could go on forever infinitely, there would have to be a beginning.

Thus where I derive the term "Linear" from. Progresses from one stage to another, even if it is infinite.

In the Linear model, basically anything could occur however usually only once. Including people, planets, or any other random sub-atomic arrangement.

Something(God, Turtles) would have had to set this linear creation into "motion" so to speak, and as such this is the type of existence any deity worshiper would most likely believe in.

Numerically it would just be a straight line, it might even repeat on occasion but no specific string would ever need to repeat. I will go into more detail about this in the eternal section and turtles sections below.

Basically since it is a straight line that never repeats itself, events take place in a set order, it isn't random, and as such everything could be traced back to an initial event.

I will discuss the philosophical implications of this and the others down below.

Eternal -

This is the form of existence that appears to be the most likely in my opinion.

What I mean by eternal is no beginning and no end. Completely random and infinite in both directions.

Every repeats an infinite number of times and quantum fluctuations produce every possible configuration of sub-atomic particles an infinite number of times.

I will discuss the philosophical implications of this and the others down below.

Turtles all the way down-

This is the type of existence that ultimately is linear as well but in the opposite direction, hard to wrap your mind around, but please bear with me.

Generally if existence had a cause, and there is no eternal initial cause, then this is what we're left with.

Either Eternity or Turtles(Infinite Causes) all the way down. Within the realm of infinite causes however, everything would need to repeat, same with the eternal proposition I made above.

If there was ever a known non repeating occurrence, you could look back to said occurrence and have a definitive point in time to observe linearity. Any one non repeating possibility implies that it isn't random.

If it isn't random than it is following a set linear path, even if the path is never ending in either direction.

On the subject of death-

Now on the subject of death I have always felt as thought there isn't an afterlife "dimension" so to speak, however if the arrangement of atoms that permeates my innate sense of consciousness should ever reoccur, exactly as they have in this Universe presently. Then I see no reason to believe that I won't consciously exist again. Perhaps not even in the same body, or with the same parents, etc. Knowing full well that after many years you're made up of entirely of different cells and atoms. It is simply the arrangement that make "you" aware. These atoms that create this experience for me will someday join in the Universe's dance of entropy. However they will one day meet again, in the same form they're in right now. Perhaps only the portion that drives my conscious mind. In this sense one may see life through the eyes of everyone within a timeless existence.

So in many ways I see death as simply going to sleep for an extended period of time. Perhaps billions, perhaps trillions of years.

It won't feel like that to you though because you will not be aware of it.

You wouldn't have a memory of any "past life" because those memories will have to be reformed throughout your life.

Take for instance someone with amnesia that loses their memories but retains their conscious mind.

Would anyone like to share their own thoughts?

Edited August 22, 2014 by Lucius Eastgate

[Lucius E.E]

Edit:

 

"These atoms that create this experience for me will someday join in the Universe's dance of entropy. However they will one day meet again, in the same form they're in right now."

 

I would like to clarify that one does not need the "same" atoms.

As it is the arrangement/entanglement of said atoms that matter, not the physical atoms themselves.

[hoola]

As the physical universe degrades as some inevitable consequence of physical reality construct, so we die in a similar process. Death is the sentient equivalent to physical entropy of the non-sentient portion of the universe, but temporarily avoidable and eventually reversible when extrapolating on the promise of gene repair technologies...

[adamkibe]

To me death is as simple and sad as this: When you die,you die. That's it. Nothing happens to you. you don't go to a heaven or hell. you simply cease to exist. The beautiful and cruel thing about conscience intelligence is that we now know this information and can't unlearn it. What a beautiful life it would be to have no knowledge of life or death....

[Lucius E.E]

To me death is as simple and sad as this: When you die,you die. That's it. Nothing happens to you. you don't go to a heaven or hell. you simply cease to exist. The beautiful and cruel thing about conscience intelligence is that we now know this information and can't unlearn it. What a beautiful life it would be to have no knowledge of life or death....

 

This is the same way I see death, except in regards to what I had posted above. At some given point the exact arrangement of atoms(spin, neutrons in the nucleus, etc) that by which make you conscious will reoccur an infinite number of times, possibly in more ways than one.

 

Seeing as how I have no belief in god, which means the linear explanation for existence is flawed, by default making the creation for anything simply due to random probability.

Anything that can happen will happen, an infinite number of times.

[Ten oz]

To me death is as simple and sad as this: When you die,you die. That's it. Nothing happens to you. you don't go to a heaven or hell. you simply cease to exist. The beautiful and cruel thing about conscience intelligence is that we now know this information and can't unlearn it. What a beautiful life it would be to have no knowledge of life or death....

I had surgery a couple years ago. I remember the Doctor tell me to breath gas and then instantaneously I woke up in the recovery room. It was instant. I experienced absolutely no time. I was under for 5 hours yet it felt like no time had past. No dreams, no dread, no sense of self, no time, no anything at all what so ever. That 5 hours could've been 5 thousand yrs and it would've felt the same. That is death in my opinion. Instantaneous and infinite.

[Lucius E.E]

I had surgery a couple years ago. I remember the Doctor tell me to breath gas and then instantaneously I woke up in the recovery room. It was instant. I experienced absolutely no time. I was under for 5 hours yet it felt like no time had past. No dreams, no dread, no sense of self, no time, no anything at all what so ever. That 5 hours could've been 5 thousand yrs and it would've felt the same. That is death in my opinion. Instantaneous and infinite.

I believe the same, however, you don't believe that within an eternal universe your atomic make-up wouldn't ever occur again, randomly, as it has before?

 

Like I said above a linear existence is not only unlikely but illogical because it would need either "god" or and infinite number of cause (turtles all the way down, which is in itself, eternal).

 

Personally I feel as though a random Universe makes the most sense, one that produces everything that can happen an infinite number of times via quantum fluctuations within a vacuum.

This is how i believe the big bang occurred, randomly from nothing.

[Ten oz]

I believe the same, however, you don't believe that within an eternal universe your atomic make-up wouldn't ever occur again, randomly, as it has before?

Nah, the matter in my body will never come together allowing me to occur again. However, my DNA may allow for some future relative to develop my claustrum or whatever part of the brain that is responsible for my conscious awareness. Perhaps I will be my own great great great grandson? Not that I would know it or have any memory of this life. It would be the conscious spark only. Body would be different as would be all learned behaviors and attitudes.

 

 

Personally I feel as though a random Universe makes the most sense, one that produces everything that can happen an infinite number of times via quantum fluctuations within a vacuum.

This is how i believe the big bang occurred, randomly from nothing.

I generally avoid theorizing about how the Big Bang/expantion accorded. The Big Bang theory is about during and after. It isn't about before or how. A lot of people try to debate what came before as a means of implying the whole theory is shaky. I don't get the impression you are doing that here so I will share my thoughts on it. I believe in the free lunch. An energy neutral universe where the universe required no energy to produce. An example would be something akin to diffence of potential in electrical theory. Nothing being the negative and energy (in all forms including matter)being positive. In a universe where there were nothing the negative energy potential would be astronomical. Any Quantum fluctuation would produce a a difference in potential and result in a massive discharge equalizing the astronomical potential negative energy of nothing with the lesser negative energy. The big bang was/is astronomical negative potential energy equalizing to some other astronomical level. That is just my theory anyway.

[Lucius E.E]

Nah, the matter in my body will never come together allowing me to occur again. However, my DNA may allow for some future relative to develop my claustrum or whatever part of the brain that is responsible for my conscious awareness. Perhaps I will be my own great great great grandson? Not that I would know it or have any memory of this life. It would be the conscious spark only. Body would be different as would be all learned behaviors and attitudes.

 

 

I generally avoid theorizing about how the Big Bang/expantion accorded. The Big Bang theory is about during and after. It isn't about before or how. A lot of people try to debate what came before as a means of implying the whole theory is shaky. I don't get the impression you are doing that here so I will share my thoughts on it. I believe in the free lunch. An energy neutral universe where the universe required no energy to produce. An example would be something akin to diffence of potential in electrical theory. Nothing being the negative and energy (in all forms including matter)being positive. In a universe where there were nothing the negative energy potential would be astronomical. Any Quantum fluctuation would produce a a difference in potential and result in a massive discharge equalizing the astronomical potential negative energy of nothing with the lesser negative energy. The big bang was/is astronomical negative potential energy equalizing to some other astronomical level. That is just my theory anyway.

 

I very much enjoy your ideas however I feel as though you may have misinterpreted what I was implying above. Which is perfectly okay, but I just wanted to hop back on to say that I wasn't talking about the occurrence of the big bang in and of itself, but "existence" as a whole. I also agree that this Universe among any potential others, mostly due to gravity and dark energy and the explanation it provides.

However my question I was attempting to posit to you was, and remains...Why do you feel as though you current atomic configuration will not occur again, randomly if it already has?

 

You see in a Universe/Multiverse of random energy anything that can happen with at least a non-zero quantum probability will happen, not only once but an infinite number of times with absolute certainty.

Otherwise if something, anything, including and not limited to your consciousness doesn't reoccur than there is a linearity within existence that can be observed and in doing so would be everything is predetermined and linear.

This violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Schrodinger's equation, etc.....not to mention if existence is and of itself linear than there is a "how" to be discovered as to why that is.

 

Ultimately my point is simply this, if anything that can happen doesn't repeat infinitely many times, then there is a point of linearity. Something predetermined, and not random.

The Big Bang and it's end results are either all predetermined or everything is random.

If it's random it repeats infinitely many times, otherwise it isn't random and is instead calculable and is predetermined for a reason.

 

This reason would have to be rationally explained and it cannot be, this is the last leg that theists have to stand on, and science is beginning to put pressure on it.

You see if everything is predetermined and not random there is a "cause" for everything and anything.

 

Even the quantum fluctuations, what force directs nothing and predetermines it?

This is the reflection of organized religion which had attempted to explain this.

Now science has reached a point which is pointing to random probability as being the cause for everything that exists.

We simply "exist" due to blind chance and evolution, and science has already more than proven this to be the case. Same is, I'm sure, with the big bang.

 

Everything I said above rules out determinism and theism as both unlikely scenarios for our existence.

Where as a random eternity seems to make more sense and is ultimately the only explanation remaining.

 

*Shrugs*

But to each their own I presume. I enjoy discussing philosophy and science, while most don't.

[Ten oz]

@ Lucius E.E, I don't believe I will every happens again because I don't believe the universe as it currently exists in infinite. Energy can not be created or destory but it can change states. Just as some energy transformed into matter one day matter may transform and energy will continue to transform. What that transformation will be is anyone's guess. What happens to matter inside a black hole for example? If it is transformed into dark matter or some sort of energy not yet theorized about how can I every exist again? The universe would be changing. Our understanding of physics may no longer apply to the universe in 50 billion years. As such things governed by our physics may never exist again. Even basic things like particles.

[hoola]

I see this universe as the information of PI which will be repeated again after this particular expression gets done and is informationally "cleared away". If another universe developed later with the same parameters of PI, (and the underlying logic demands the same algorithm), then the information that describes you will exist again within the math object. That doesn't mean the information will ever get expressed, and if expressed in any way, certainly seems unlikely to repeat itself with the doppelganger type of similar existence to each individual as in the infinite multiverse concept. I do see each new universe beginning with the same mathematical object, which is drawn upon to construct realities, both materially and (eventually) personally, and will become more randomized as time proceeds from the big bang of any particular universe. That randomness will assure an overall "same but different" effect on gross appearances similar to a wave pattern within a region of the ocean...but that randomness may push the coordinates for a particular construct back from a more random condition to a state of less randomness, bringing about a momentary alignment of two disparate entities within two separate universes...like a phase cancellation within a wave structure relationship causing transitions through "null points" of similar values between two separated tanks of wavy water...

Edited August 24, 2014 by hoola

[Lucius E.E]

I see this universe as the information of PI which will be repeated again after this particular expression gets done and is informationally "cleared away". If another universe developed later with the same parameters of PI, (and the underlying logic demands the same algorithm), then the information that describes you will exist again within the math object. That doesn't mean the information will ever get expressed, and if expressed in any way, certainly seems unlikely to repeat itself with the doppelganger type of similar existence to each individual as in the infinite multiverse concept. I do see each new universe beginning with the same mathematical object, which is drawn upon to construct realities, both materially and (eventually) personally, and will become more randomized as time proceeds from the big bang of any particular universe. That randomness will assure an overall "same but different" effect on gross appearances similar to a wave pattern within a region of the ocean...but that randomness may push the coordinates for a particular construct back from a more random condition to a state of less randomness, bringing about a momentary alignment of two disparate entities within two separate universes...like a phase cancellation within a wave structure relationship causing transitions through "null points" of similar values between two separated tanks of wavy water...

 

It's not a question of whether or not it seems unlikely, if something has a nonzero quantum mechanical chance of occurring. It will occur and infinite number of times, regardless of it's probability.

If something exists once within an eternity it must occur and infinite number of times, otherwise, there's a point of linearity, and the system is not truly timeless as discussed above.

 

 

As you can see here it is possible to predict the probability even if it occurs an infinite number of times.

Despite the integrals running to infinity the probability can still be well defined.

 

We can now say that anything that can happen will happen with a nonzero quantum mechanical probability.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[hoola]

I say no to the laurence krauss style of creation...a quantum fluctuation is a very complex juggling of particular informational components....a long series of events must have proceeded prior to the quantum, or even the mathematics with which to support it. Math and/or the quantum are not originators....they arose from simpler elements in a long evolution of pre - BB era events...reaching back to the "pure" void. Mathematics is hitting a wall nearing the BB time frame because it didn't exist in it's present form much before that...but something existed that cannot be calculated with standard maths, hence currently unmeasurable. Once math has been deduced to earlier steps, that problem should be addressable by calculating in those "dead languages" of early informational structures...

Edited August 24, 2014 by hoola

[Lucius E.E]

I say no to the laurence krauss style of creation...a quantum fluctuation is a very complex juggling of particular informational components....a long series of events must have proceeded prior to the quantum, or even the mathematics with which to support it. Math and/or the quantum are not originators....they arose from simpler elements in a long evolution of pre - BB era events...reaching back to the "pure" void. Mathematics is hitting a wall nearing the BB time frame because it didn't exist in it's present form much before that...but something existed that cannot be calculated with standard maths, hence currently unmeasurable. Once math has been deduced to earlier steps, that problem should be addressable by calculating in those "dead languages" of early informational structures...

 

Do you believe that all that exists, including and not limited to the multiverse, is in fact linear, or timeless?

[hoola]

I only think it as one possible alternative to something that seems even less likely. Ok, so a quantum fluctuation starts this universe, and will infinitely times...then why hasn't more BBs occurred, creating quite a spectacular mess in this existing universe? Futhermore this is like saying a "standard working component" of this universe was responsible for the creation of the universe, but there is no reason to think it existed prior to the universe itself...you can't logically say the universe called itself into existence by something that exists after it's own birth....the baby doesn't create itself.....or is responsible for it's parents getting together....I only want to start a conversation about possible scenarios that attempt to describe a heirarcy of information evolution that started with the void, went through an identifiable number of stages, culminating in the maths, which as a factoring of the endless algorithm PI, describe the universe...sure, the idea is silly, but no sillier than anything else I have read.. actually krauss's idea is pretty good, and the math may point in that direction, but the formulae you described has an infinity sign in it....a sure sign that an illogical anomaly is more likely to show up...rather than a universe. My IBH scenario posits a universe or multiverse of finite number, with no "nothings" and no "infinites" of theoretical or real things...including time. I do see a linear pathway from the void, which has a default informational content of precisely one v-bit, as a "doped void", and that is the origin of the flow of things. I have posted before on the IBH idea of mine, and have stopped directly mentioning it as it is not well received, nor should it be....if anyone has an alternative idea of the "why anything" question, I would love to hear it...but it must propose an origination that is external to any known artifact or device known to exist within the current universe...

Edited August 25, 2014 by hoola

[Lucius E.E]

I only think it as one possible alternative to something that seems even less likely. Ok, so a quantum fluctuation starts this universe, and will infinitely times...then why hasn't more BBs occurred, creating quite a spectacular mess in this existing universe? Futhermore this is like saying a "standard working component" of this universe was responsible for the creation of the universe, but there is no reason to think it existed prior to the universe itself...you can't logically say the universe called itself into existence by something that exists after it's own birth....the baby doesn't create itself.....or is responsible for it's parents getting together....I only want to start a conversation about possible scenarios that attempt to describe a heirarcy of information evolution that started with the void, went through an identifiable number of stages, culminating in the maths, which as a factoring of the endless algorithm PI, describe the universe...sure, the idea is silly, but no sillier than anything else I have read.. actually krauss's idea is pretty good, and the math may point in that direction, but the formulae you described has an infinity sign in it....a sure sign that an illogical anomaly is more likely to show up...rather than a universe. My IBH scenario posits a universe or multiverse of finite number, with no "nothings" and no "infinites" of theoretical or real things...including time. I do see a linear pathway from the void, which has a default informational content of precisely one v-bit, as a "doped void", and that is the origin of the flow of things. I have posted before on the IBH idea of mine, and have stopped directly mentioning it as it is not well received, nor should it be....if anyone has an alternative idea of the "why anything" question, I would love to hear it...but it must propose an origination that is external to any known artifact or device known to exist within the current universe...

 

Then what is the origin of this "v-bit" in this apparent "void."

 

What then is the origin of this void?

 

How did this "void" come to be?

 

What came before the void?

 

What comes from the void?

 

Again if linearity stems from this "void", than the "void" hasn't always existed, because time takes place there.

 

Ultimately everything must stem from a system which has always existed and will always exist.

 

Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

 

Linearity needs causality.

[hoola]

the void is absence of information. That definition requires a bit of an adjustment though, as I see that a void is by definition never completely empty of information, only at a minimum state. ( the no nothing requirement) That is why it is a "doped void", as it has information which can be described with a simple question....how many voids were there? 13?...77?...2/3?....the answer seems to be one (1) void...that is the original v-bit of quasi information as a theoretical identifier or "label", if you will. The void came to be be with absence of information, other than the default v-bit of there being 1 void. It is not a thing in itself, other than that one v-bit identifier..so nothing created the void. That v-bit signifies the first archaic bit of pre-information.. From this v- bit I go on to construct an imaginary chaos, as the v- bit is a fluctuating theoretical, as logic has not evolved yet to stabilize it's behavior so it becomes a froth of premathematical v-bits of unstable and unknowable value, due to lack of the before mentioned logic. Within this region of theoretical chaos, a region froze out with some v-bits randomly lasting longer than others, eventually leading to a few stable v-bits attaining a certain but stable value. As time proceeded, these seed bits began associations that formulate the underpinning of logic, added to by the randomly stablizing v-bits that are subsumed into the domain of logic with the other seed bits. In this process of accretion they evolve from v-bits to theoretical bits, one step closer to "real" bits of information that we know of today, which in an of themselves are not "real" in the general sense of the word. This shows how ephemeral a concept of the v-bit is...a primitive form of something that is merely theoretical. Yet the current universe is built from such bits. As logic evolved, associations of values allowed a single bit enough "stability" to acquire an additional identifier, a geometric one, the point. This theoretical point has a geometric similarity to any sphere present today, as allowed by the logic that regulates the developing maths, a subset of the developing logic requires that the circumference and diameter of this new point have the relationship of PI. This applies to any true point or macroscopic sphere, theoretical or otherwise...the thing goes on from here to describe the IBH, but I won't go on unless there is some interest from anyone that I do so. It is all spelled out in prior entries over the months, and in better detail than this short description...just search engine my entries...thanks for you interest.

Edited August 25, 2014 by hoola

[Ophiolite]

In the meantime we should never forget that, for most people, strawberries taste delicious.

[Lucius E.E]

the void is absence of information. That definition requires a bit of an adjustment though, as I see that a void is by definition never completely empty of information, only at a minimum state. ( the no nothing requirement) That is why it is a "doped void", as it has information which can be described with a simple question....how many voids were there? 13?...77?...2/3?....the answer seems to be one (1) void...that is the original v-bit of quasi information as a theoretical identifier or "label", if you will. The void came to be be with absence of information, other than the default v-bit of there being 1 void. It is not a thing in itself, other than that one v-bit identifier..so nothing created the void. That v-bit signifies the first archaic bit of pre-information.. From this v- bit I go on to construct an imaginary chaos, as the v- bit is a fluctuating theoretical, as logic has not evolved yet to stabilize it's behavior so it becomes a froth of premathematical v-bits of unstable and unknowable value, due to lack of the before mentioned logic. Within this region of theoretical chaos, a region froze out with some v-bits randomly lasting longer than others, eventually leading to a few stable v-bits attaining a certain but stable value. As time proceeded, these seed bits began associations that formulate the underpinning of logic, added to by the randomly stablizing v-bits that are subsumed into the domain of logic with the other seed bits. In this process of accretion they evolve from v-bits to theoretical bits, one step closer to "real" bits of information that we know of today, which in an of themselves are not "real" in the general sense of the word. This shows how ephemeral a concept of the v-bit is...a primitive form of something that is merely theoretical. Yet the current universe is built from such bits. As logic evolved, associations of values allowed a single bit enough "stability" to acquire an additional identifier, a geometric one, the point. This theoretical point has a geometric similarity to any sphere present today, as allowed by the logic that regulates the developing maths, a subset of the developing logic requires that the circumference and diameter of this new point have the relationship of PI. This applies to any true point or macroscopic sphere, theoretical or otherwise...the thing goes on from here to describe the IBH, but I won't go on unless there is some interest from anyone that I do so. It is all spelled out in prior entries over the months, and in better detail than this short description...just search engine my entries...thanks for you interest.

 

Alright so this void has always existed and will always exist I take it? (Eternal)

 

If so what is preventing it from repeating the same chain of events more than once?

 

Does time take place in your void?(SpaceTime)

 

Does the void exist outside of time?

 

 

Feel free to PM me your response if you would rather avoid typing it out on the forum.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[hoola]

the void, is not a true void. This is the key. The default label on a single v-bit tends to eventual growth. Each universe this effect is responsible for depends on the principles of it's perhaps unique form of logic. This is also to imagine another universe still within the IBH, as PI still is ticking off the original "flame"( 3.15159....), new information is being expressed. This should supply new universes with different architechures of material protocols based upon differing logic structure. The void exists no longer as it is now filled up with information and fails to meet the description of void. Time does take place in the void, as any change in the information within it as it evolves signifies change. This rate of time was chaotic also, just as the fragmented unstable v-bit was, until the logic froze out and logic formed. As the logic constructed the maths, a fixed rate of the chronon was established, from a association of the primary (for this universe) logic dictates. This is the fastest thing that can be calculated by any computing device (within this particular universe), and is the processor speed of the IBH. The IBH is an "informational black hole", in that the accumulating information developed advanced interrelationships, and amongst other normal parameters, describes mass mathematically.....that is how I see all fundamentals, as descriptions. The IBH is what the universe is, description-wise. Amongst all this "software" of information of how logic played out in our particular case, was also a description of the hardware to activate the underlying equations of these fundamental description. Our universe is one of the "hardwares", and so is not really real, only a simulation so real, that it falls under any reasonable definition of reality. I could go on to muse on what this could mean as regards to free will of any sentience developing within this universe...(anything you can think, do or say, is in the IBH today). I will explain my reasoning for this if you haven't already read it in a previous entry.....hopefully this answered you time questions....thanks lucius....edd

Edited August 25, 2014 by hoola

[Lucius E.E]

the void, is not a true void. This is the key. The default label on a single v-bit tends to eventual growth. Each universe this effect is responsible for depends on the principles of it's perhaps unique form of logic. This is also to imagine another universe still within the IBH, as PI still is ticking off the original "flame"( 3.15159....), new information is being expressed. This should supply new universes with different architechures of material protocols based upon differing logic structure. The void exists no longer as it is now filled up with information and fails to meet the description of void. Time does take place in the void, as any change in the information within it as it evolves signifies change. This rate of time was chaotic also, just as the fragmented unstable v-bit was, until the logic froze out and logic formed. As the logic constructed the maths, a fixed rate of the chronon was established, from a association of the primary (for this universe) logic dictates. This is the fastest thing that can be calculated by any computing device (within this particular universe), and is the processor speed of the IBH. The IBH is an "informational black hole", in that the accumulating information developed advanced interrelationships, and amongst other normal parameters, describes mass mathematically.....that is how I see all fundamentals, as descriptions. The IBH is what the universe is, description-wise. Amongst all this "software" of information of how logic played out in our particular case, was also a description of the hardware to activate the underlying equations of these fundamental description. Our universe is one of the "hardwares", and so is not really real, only a simulation so real, that it falls under any reasonable definition of reality. I could go on to muse on what this could mean as regards to free will of any sentience developing within this universe...(anything you can think, do or say, is in the IBH today). I will explain my reasoning for this if you haven't already read it in a previous entry.....hopefully this answered you time questions....thanks lucius....edd

 

 

What is the origin than, of the time taking place in the void?

 

I ask again what caused this v-bit/void to exist given that it is finite(has either a beginning or an end)?

 

You cannot simply say this v-bit exists out of absolute nothing, but is finite.

[hoola]

Your last statement, in reference to "absolute nothing" doesn't fit within the IBH concept. The void has the v-bit as an unavoidable consequence of being "one nothing". Time comes into factor as the v-bit fragments into chaos, each fragment represents change, and one erratic tick of the pre-logic clock. Any change represents a tick from thereon just as now. Now that logic has an established clock frequency standard, we have a chronon, or minimum period of quantisized time increments. Everything is finite and possibly repeating but never infinite, only very large and old... If any universe has a life expectancy, since it had a birth, a punctuated series of universes could commence as soon as one de-materializes, for what ever reason. Any establishment of a void minimum will have the same contamination of the single v-bit, giving another beginning to it's evolution, and re-starting time again within that region once chaotic fragmentation begins. The question is...can a void minimum ever be established again, or will once information makes an appearance, has it has poisoned the nascent potential of any new universe, much as opening the sealed container will break symmetry of entangled particles, by introducing external influences..? .My definition on how to build a universe is to first remove all information within a given region. Shield the region from any exterior matter of energies and the conditions will allow a universe to begin to evolve as long as the shield holds, and you were to somehow perform the feat of removing all extraneous information from it in the first place. Paint a big red 1 on the side and then wait patiently for perhaps a trillion years for something to happen.... to re-establish those requirements is all that sentience could do to make a new universe within an existing universe, given the slow speeds of current computer hardware.

Edited August 25, 2014 by hoola

[Lucius E.E]

Your last statement, in reference to "absolute nothing" doesn't fit within the IBH concept. The void has the v-bit as an unavoidable consequence of being "one nothing". Time comes into factor as the v-bit fragments into chaos, each fragment represents change, and one erratic tick of the pre-logic clock. Any change represents a tick from thereon just as now. Now that logic has an established clock frequency standard, we have a chronon, or minimum period of quantisized time increments. Everything is finite and possibly repeating but never infinite, only very large and old... If any universe has a life expectancy, since it had a birth, a punctuated series of universes could commence as soon as one de-materializes, for what ever reason. Any establishment of a void minimum will have the same contamination of the single v-bit, giving another beginning to it's evolution, and re-starting time again within that region once chaotic fragmentation begins. The question is...can a void minimum ever be established again, or will once information makes an appearance, has it has poisoned the nascent potential of any new universe, much as opening the sealed container will break symmetry of entangled particles, by introducing external influences..? .My definition on how to build a universe is to first remove all information within a given region. Shield the region from any exterior matter of energies and the conditions will allow a universe to begin to evolve as long as the shield holds, and you were to somehow perform the feat of removing all extraneous information from it in the first place. Paint a big red 1 on the side and then wait patiently for perhaps a trillion years for something to happen.... to re-establish those requirements is all that sentience could do to make a new universe within an existing universe, given the slow speeds of current computer hardware.

 

How was the first v-bit formed?

 

 

I ask again what caused this v-bit/void to exist given that it is finite(has either a beginning or an end)?

 

 

To further explain my point, I understand what you're saying when you say "one nothing."

However if time takes place within this one nothing, this void with a single bit of information, then something must have "created" the first one nothing.

One cannot simply say a system that exists within time is finite but has always existed. Unless you say it is a derivative of some sort of "eternal" time, in which case on a long enough timeline(eternal) another "one nothing" shall occur, repeating everything an infinite amount of times.(as I said in the OP)

If it does not however, then it is linear and had a definite beginning.

 

You cannot say this "one nothing" simply exists unless it is apart of an infinite cycle.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[hoola]

Lucius.... the IBH scenario does not as of yet suggest if things repeat or not...maybe they do. I can only say with certainty that things happened once. There does seem to be a default minimum of information in our universe. How, or if this was setup to be this way, seems a true unknowable. Descriptive events leading up to the BB may be just as unknowable.......It is pretty hard to imagine the BB simply "just happened" without a whole lot of "prep work". I suppose one could make some anthropomorphic argument that sentient life caused some sort of "a universe will only exist if sentience evolves within it", or some variation of that. I am not a big fan of those sorts of ideas...My best guess is that a void of the type I am describing occurred naturally, perhaps only once in the history of the universe, although I realize that dodges your question, of which I have thought about over the last 2 years or so as I was refining the main thrust of the idea. Thank you so much for your excellent feedback...you have seen through the idea as far as I think it is possible to do so...this type of conversation is what I was waiting for.....edd

[Lucius E.E]

Lucius.... the IBH scenario does not as of yet suggest if things repeat or not...maybe they do. I can only say with certainty that things happened once. There does seem to be a default minimum of information in our universe. How, or if this was setup to be this way, seems a true unknowable. Descriptive events leading up to the BB may be just as unknowable.......It is pretty hard to imagine the BB simply "just happened" without a whole lot of "prep work". I suppose one could make some anthropomorphic argument that sentient life caused some sort of "a universe will only exist if sentience evolves within it", or some variation of that. I am not a big fan of those sorts of ideas...My best guess is that a void of the type I am describing occurred naturally, perhaps only once in the history of the universe, although I realize that dodges your question, of which I have thought about over the last 2 years or so as I was refining the main thrust of the idea. Thank you so much for your excellent feedback...you have seen through the idea as far as I think it is possible to do so...this type of conversation is what I was waiting for.....edd

 

Alright so I have a clearer picture in my head as to what you believe had happened.

 

You say this void occured naturally within the history of the universe, once.

 

However as I already logically argued above this simply isn't possible. Without the big bang there is no Universe, there was never a void within the Universe unless it came first.

 

If the void did produce this Universe, than it exists outside of spacetime, logically speaking it's not possible for it nor to exist outside of time.

 

Everything finite has a cause, would it not then be more logical to say this void reoccurs infinity or exists outside of common spacetime geometry?

 

Does this void abide by the laws of physics?

 

If it occurred naturally within the Universe, how can this be if it had caused the BB?

 

So again I ask of you, what actually caused the void?

 

The Universe running out of matter and energy and dying?

 

 

Roger Penrose had a similar idea at one point -

 

Links-

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/07/penroses-cyclic-cosmology/#.U_xgOvldVAJ

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf

 

 

 

 

Also please keep in mind that this would occur within an infinite cycle, otherwise it wouldn't happen at all, because if it did not it would be finite and thus require some other beginning.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E