Kaiser01 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So i ran across a interesting idea by Lee Smolin that natural selection takes place on the scale of the universe. Basically the idea states that universes come about from black hole collapse and only the universes that can create black holes through physical laws will reproduce making the universes more and more complex just like evolution. what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 It's an interesting thought but I don't think we'll know for sure anytime soon... or anytime at all for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I'm with Thurisaz. It's an interesting notion, but I don't know how one would go about proving it with experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 Yea i wonder how he goes about proving his position, he has a book on it but i havent read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 What came first the black hole or the universe. Oh, gawddidit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 What came first the black hole or the universe. That's pretty nifty man. What if the whole universe is, in some complex and paradoxical fashion, self-entailed and self-entailing? For instance, we may note that in purely formal terms which employ implication (or formal entailment) that these kinds of things are possible. Below is an systematic arrangement of implication which is self-implied and self-implying with the exception of an initial choice of an element in A. f ==> A --> B Phi ==> B --> F B ==> F --> Phi If this is possible in formal entailment then perhaps it's also possible in natural entailment, or causality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 You're such a dork, L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 You're such a dork, L. Yeah well, somebody's gotta be thinking around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 "you think too much" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 "you think too much" Are you not going to offer comments on the content of that post man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I don't even know where to start. It's so elementary, it's not worth my time to chat about such childish banter. lol You lost me at "entailment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You lost me at "entailment" Oh. My bad. Should I offer my take on it? Others might disagree with me, but I sometimes believe I can hold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Annnnnnnnndddd Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Well, Aristotle exposed natural entailment when he examined the relations between asking "Why does X obtain?" and the answers, "because...". He typically did this using artifacts. So in the tradition we could ask for instance, "Why does this computer I'm using exist?" And there are a variety of answers, for example... 1. Because of its raw materials (e.g. silicon, plastic, metal, glass). 2. Because of a manufacturing process. 3. Because of a particular blueprint or schematic or design. 4. Because it computes and communicates. These are examples in turn of: 1. material 2. efficient 3. formal 4. final causes .... of the computer. And this pair of the question "why does the computer, C, exist?" and the answer "because M" as the material cause implies a relation of material entailment... M ---> C or M entails C. We can further represent the efficient cause, a manufacturing process, p, acting in accordance with a formal cause, a schematic s, as giving rise to this material transformation. s * p =====> M -----> C, or s and p entail that M entails C Final causes are things which the computer itself entails, computation and communication are among the things to which it gives rise, or here called "compcomm". (it also makes a good paper weight) Thus we'd have something like... s * p ===> M -----> C -----> compcomm This are considerations of some of the natural entailments associated with this computer and the representation of these entailments. How'd that fly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 What I have been learning from listening to books and lectures by Brian Greene of Columbia Uni and Mark Whittle of the Uni of Virginia, is that there exists a current theory that the expansion or inflation of the big bang may have been set off by a quantum fluctuation or random jitter in a quantum field that produced a vacuum and that empty space precipitated the launch of our particular asylum universe. There is also the postulation in one of the three standard flavors of possibility in Quantum Physics that we exist in a multiverse or even a multitemporal multidimensional multiverse - in which every possible event occurs. (3 schools of Qantum Mechanics are Copenhagen, Hidden Variables and MultiWorlds) Mr. Smolin is channeling a Hindu-like idea of an oscillating universe - the Brahman dream wherein Brahma sleeps for something like 64 billion years and then wakes and the whole thing re-mixes and starts over for another 64 billion years of activity and then goes back to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted June 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 9, 2012 I like to follow theoretical physics as well, but the idea that EVERY possible event occurs somewhere at sometime sounds like a pretty over the top hypothesis to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Damn quantum mechanics. What is time? Time may not be as simple as some believe. It may possible to correctly see it in many ways. I think it's associated with efficient and formal causes. For instance, we can cast the acceleration of a mass falling in gravity. The time, t, of gravity's action, g, gives rise to a transformation of an initial momentum, Mi, into final momentum Mf. t * g: Mi ---> Mf But when we ask here, "why do time and gravity exist?" then we only have an answer in terms of final cause... "because time and gravity give rise to new momentum". This is what time and gravity themselves entail. But we don't know what entails time and gravity here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Damn quantum mechanics. What is time? Time may not be as simple as some believe. It may possible to correctly see it in many ways. I think it's associated with efficient and formal causes. For instance, we can cast the acceleration of a mass falling in gravity. The time, t, of gravity's action, g, gives rise to a transformation of an initial momentum, Mi, into final momentum Mf. t * g: Mi ---> Mf But when we ask here, "why do time and gravity exist?" then we only have an answer in terms of final cause... "because time and gravity give rise to new momentum". This is what time and gravity themselves entail. But we don't know what entails time and gravity here. Dangit Legion, when you start breaking out the advanced calculus and shit, I just get lost. Dumb it down for me! Edit: I have almost 300 hours of college credit. This means: 1. I couldnt make up my f'ing mind. 2. I made it 90% through a program, only to fail out at the last possible moment. 3. Having 300 hours on your resume doesnt make one a genius. (proof = me) 4. I would have better spent my time washing puppies for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Dangit Legion, when you start breaking out the advanced calculus and shit, I just get lost. The language I'm using is one of causality and inference. The notation I'm using is categorical. That is, it attempts to show the basic relations between objects and relations or processes, called maps or arrows or morphisms. Dumb it down for me! I'm trying to keep it semi-real abstract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'm trying to keep it semi-real abstract. Just keep it real, playa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I'm trying to keep it semi-real abstract. Just keep it real, playa! Well that's just it. In some sense we don't know what "real" is. We infer in our minds how and why nature behaves as it does, and sometimes we are even able to cast accurate predictions. But in the last examination, "real" is grasped by us through our ability to subjectively infer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 So how does it feel to be the only one in the room that understands the words coming out of your mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 So how does it feel to be the only one in the room that understands the words coming out of your mouth? If that's the case, then I'm not communicating properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I just don't speak ummm...whatever that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I just don't speak ummm...whatever that was. Alright. Do you know this is the science and religion section? Are you a jester here? <---- something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts