My Personal Thoughts on Death and the Universe

[hoola]

4. yes the void existed outside space time. It was a dimensionless void, and everything you can describe such as fields, energies, even the dimensions (space) came from there, all mathematically described in the overall process. Time began first with the fragmentation of the chaos. After a long series of descriptions, I see the dimension descriptions as a final (major) action of the IBH, as the expression of these dimensions provided "someplace for things to be"...causing (allowing) the BB. Once the dimensions were expressed, the IBH "evaporated" it's information into the newly created space, in a rough analogy to normal black hole evaporation in contemporary space if they are deprived of fuel for an extended period. The same process was much bigger with the IBH as active element. 5. The ibh idea has't much to say about re-occuring universes, it mostly speaks to this universe, or other possible universes contemporary to ours. The information well may contain other universe descriptions. There is only so much information that can ever be described, adjusted by the rate of descriptions, which is finite, so the number of contemporaneous universes is finite. In a cyclical scenario, all information would have to be removed from a universe before another universe could be allowed to express (BB). Any stray information coming in from a pre-existing universe would skew the results due to the information never falling below a level required to establish a void of the quality needed to allow normal development. I can even imagine there is a "cutoff point" of information flux strength and type, that will allow another universe to form. That gets very complex, as perhaps the previous universe's stray flux affects the baby universe and there is a sort of evolution process, almost a sexual format of mixing the "dna" of the two. I prefer to think about the well making one or several universes similtaneously, and pretty much stopping there. But in consideration of a cyclical set of universes, one could see a mixing of one to the next causing a real evolutionary, sexual mixing of information...leading to perhaps a series of universes with one eventually having the right "adulteration" to allow complexity sufficient to allow life. If the universe(s) had a birth, then odds are they have a death. That seems to logic against cyclical endlessness, but doesnt' prohibit the idea. 6. Yes, the void abides the laws of physics as it created them ! 8. there was no cause for nothing to exist. The void was not a thing, the zen of nothingness...my thinking stops there as stated before only because to do so is pre-informational (pre v-bit). If I have moved the goal post back from the BB to the void, I am temporarily satisfied, and I have only a freakish quasi-anthropomorphic fantasy to go beyond that. The IBH story is more about why stuff is here, not about why stuff wasn't. As to your last question...if there was an "infinite" cycling of universes, at any one point the number would be increasing, and could forever, but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been. There can always be one more, hence never reaches the illogical statement that there was or ever will be an infinite number of them. Just as PI has been, and still is cranking out new information since the our form of logic created PI, the amount will never be infinite, only big and getting bigger. In that sense, I see that endless string continuing the descriptions from the well, maintaining from chronon to chronon, our existences with constant re-discriptions, with updates of course, which allow movements within the universe . Every point in space (a tiny whirling PI) is a point of expression of the info flux as a residual final component of function for this particular universe, post BB. As the flux continues, the expression continues,(maintenance of the spell)... *that's a lil' joke, son*... allowing for the expansion of space as well as maintenance of what is already there...I see our universe and possibly others, residing within the IBH and all is illusion of reality, or external to the IBH, as a more substantial projection of remote information, but still a bit of a contrivance. I prefer the latter. Better to be more real than less. I see those "tiny whirling PIs" as the source of the dark energy. As they crank out information, that translates as a weak flux coming from everywhere, slightly pushing the universe apart from within local regions..

[Lucius E.E]

As to your last question...if there was an "infinite" cycling of universes, at any one point the number would be increasing, and could forever, but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been.

 

Just as PI has been, and still is cranking out new information since the our form of logic created PI, the amount will never be infinite, only big and getting bigger. In that sense, I see that endless string continuing the descriptions from the well, maintaining from chronon to chronon, our existences with constant re-discriptions, with updates of course, which allow movements within the universe.

 

I get the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong but you must not understand infinity.

 

You say the void has always existed and needs no beginning, however you claim the following:

 

"but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been"

 

If there was a first universe than the void has not always existed.

There couldn't be a first as there would be no linear flow of time within a system that has always existed, hence also why repetition is essential.

 

If it has always existed what caused it to begin making a Universe/Multiverse?

It must have existed infinitely before it begun randomly creating them.

 

Also it wouldn't be timeless in the sense that the flow of time going forward would be measurable by going back to the first Universe/Multiverse, given that it doesn't repeat, and thus can be seen as a point of linearity.

So here you couldn't say time is moving infinitely forward even if it does or is projected/predicted to do so, as by definition infinity is not measurable. Once it is measurable in any way it ceases being infinite and becomes measurable and thus linear.

 

If it produced a Universe/Multiverse within a set period of time, and it truly has no beginning, then it will produce the same Univere/Multiverse given the same or similar amount of time; otherwise it is linear.

 

We can then conclude it cannot be without a beginning as the same event would take place again it it were without a beginning.

As a finite amount of time must have taken place before this linear time point as well(if it works in the opposite direction), you just don't know what it is, and are unable to measure it backwards, however with a linear event that occurs once you can measure time forward from the event, and know that a set amount of time before the event took place. So it isn't infinitely reversed either as there was a linear "break point" so to speak. So even if the time before is not measurable it cannot by definition be infinite either as there is a point where it ends, and infinity; by definition, never ends.

 

This automatically disproves anything else you believe until this problem with your thinking is resolved, however I do find your ideas interesting.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[nullus]

Lucius E.E check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxUTUd6ToTM im sure you can find it useful

[PeterJ]

I'd highly recommend Hermann Weil for a discussion of the void in the form of the intuitive continuum, the continuum of experience, as opposed to the void of mathematics and conceptual imagination, which is, as you say Hoopla, a numerical phenomenon and thus not a true void. A true void would be inconceivable, since the categories of thought would not apply. Robert Kaplan talks about this in his book on the history of zero, and concludes that the universe may be more simple than we can think.

.

[Lucius E.E]

Lucius E.E check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxUTUd6ToTM im sure you can find it useful

 

Thank you for that video. Very interesting, this coincides with what I believe precisely.

Other than the means at which it occurs may vary(quantum fluctuations, string theory, etc)

I'd highly recommend Hermann Weil for a discussion of the void in the form of the intuitive continuum, the continuum of experience, as opposed to the void of mathematics and conceptual imagination, which is, as you say Hoopla, a numerical phenomenon and thus not a true void. A true void would be inconceivable, since the categories of thought would not apply. Robert Kaplan talks about this in his book on the history of zero, and concludes that the universe may be more simple than we can think.

.

 

Yes however Hoopla's Universe still requires a beginning, see the following link here:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

 

It's easy to see that even if you have a static/eternal seed that eventually creates a "first" Universe, just the act of there being a "first" anything which doesn't repeat means that must have been a beginning.

[PeterJ]

That seems right to me also. This would be why Lao tsu does not saying that the universe has or does not have a beginning, but, rather, that true words seem paradoxical.

 

The subtlety issue here would be the assumption that something began. If there is something, then it began. But what if there is no 'something'? What if Buddhist philosophers are right, and nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens?

 

What if the world does not have a beginning because by reduction it isn't there? For a less than fundamental view it is definitely there, obviously, and must have a beginning. But a beginning makes no sense. It cannot be a fundamental view. There must be 'more' fundamental view, for which it is not there.

[nullus]

 

Thank you for that video. Very interesting, this coincides with what I believe precisely.

Other than the means at which it occurs may vary(quantum fluctuations, string theory, etc)

You're welcome. quantum fluctuations, string theory, etc may vary also

[Skeptic134]

I think it is an interesting idea that the organization of the matter and energy responsible for my consciousness could potentially occur again but I believe the reality is that my consciousness is not just my atoms but also my experiences.

 

Basically, my consciousness changes over time because my experiences mold and form my neural pathways. Even if mathematically the probability exists for matter and energy to form identically to match some snapshot of my “former” consciousness in the next moment it would no longer be a snapshot but a new consciousness.

 

This reminds me a little of something I’ve thought about before, a finite number of potential “original” humans. At some point “we’ve had that human all ready”, of course the numbers I’m sure are incredibly huge.

 

Death I imagine is just like prior to birth.

[PeterJ]

I think there must be no end to the possibilities of even just human experience. Still, I suppose boredom may set in. In Zen there is, 'your face before you were born.', and we are advised to get to know it.

[Lucius E.E]

I think it is an interesting idea that the organization of the matter and energy responsible for my consciousness could potentially occur again but I believe the reality is that my consciousness is not just my atoms but also my experiences.

 

Basically, my consciousness changes over time because my experiences mold and form my neural pathways. Even if mathematically the probability exists for matter and energy to form identically to match some snapshot of my “former” consciousness in the next moment it would no longer be a snapshot but a new consciousness.

 

This reminds me a little of something I’ve thought about before, a finite number of potential “original” humans. At some point “we’ve had that human all ready”, of course the numbers I’m sure are incredibly huge.

 

Death I imagine is just like prior to birth.

 

Oops well I guess you're right.

 

It's not just the atoms but the experiences, yes.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[mothythewso]

Speaking as one who is actively, albeit slowly, dying (Stage IV Colorectal cancer), I have a particular interest in in this topic.

First, the heat death theory of the end of Universe, my personal favorite, will occur in about 10¹⁰⁰⁰ years, give or take a few millennia. That isn't nearly long enough for probability to reproduce my structure atom for atom, even if one discounts the possible effects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle over that time frame. Can't back this up mathematically, but I assert it nevertheless.

Secondly, I think you're getting of topic with esoteric musings. I think Skeptic 143 has it just about right.

Thirdly, death's just one of those things you have to deal with in life, like global warming or Vladimir Putin (or Barack Obama, for that matter). Wishing it away is a waste of what little time any of us is allotted on this Earth; to savor the sheer joy of living, of new things to experience, of new countries to visit, of new people to meet. To share time with, to cherish, someone you love, and who loves you. If you're lucky, Death's no big whoop.

[mothythewso]

Addendum:

I do find that my relatively imminent demise (haven't set a date yet, could be measured in weeks, more probably in months, certainly not in years) endows me with a certain sense of freedom. I don't want to be thrown of Science Forums for being a troll, participating in intelligent conversations here has become a passion, but neither do I feel any compelling reason to be polite in the face of obviously politically-motivated arguments, attempts to intellectually browbeat me, posters with no sense of humor, who take themselves far too seriously, posters who can't even use spell-check or ignore the basics of English grammar and/or usage (non-native English as a second language speakers excepted, of course), and just plain idiots, of which there are far more than I would have expected considering the overall tenor of the threads. In the immortal words of The Who, "I'm Free. And I'm waiting for you to follow me."