IIRC, Penrose suggested that black holes could leave some effects on the next cycle, but I don't remember the details.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IIRC, Penrose suggested that black holes could leave some effects on the next cycle, but I don't remember the details.For anyone that wants to do sciency stuff, consider the above in regards to Penrose's CCC. Once you lose scalars, i.e mass, time and space become meaningless. So how can information pass from one aeon to the next? The next aeon would appear to emerge from nothing.
My apologies if I don't communicate clearly. If you're not following and you're interested in what I'm talking about, please ask for clarification or simplification - most things can be simplified or rephrased to make them clearer.
I know I can be a bit wordy, and it's difficult to know what level to pitch an explanation at when the forum readers vary from having no scientific or philosophical background at all to having good knowledge and understanding of both.
I doubt I'm smarter than you or anyone else on the forums - there are several posters that often leave me floundering, but, like them, I have particular interests that I focus on, but having some knowledge or understanding of particular subjects doesn't necessarily mean you're smarter...
My personal communicative style stems from a complete lack of formal education. Ninth grade, that's it. So I struggle with just about anything beyond that level. But it's taught me that you really have to make an effort to understand where a person is coming from, and not simply dismiss them as a nutjob. And sometimes that's really, really hard to do.I leave people floundering but it is my unconventional
use of English not a surfeit of erudition.
That part I get. It's when you try to visualize the period between the two aeons that I begin to scratch my head. Once you lose scale, it would seem as though what you have left should be completely uniform, homogeneous, spaceless, and timeless. Yet somehow information transfers from one aeon to the next. But how, when it seems as if the slate should've been completely wiped clean? There would seem to be no way of differentiating one point from another point. In fact you wouldn't even have points. So how is this interim period maintaining information?IIRC, Penrose suggested that black holes could leave some effects on the next cycle, but I don't remember the details.
See, this is an example of my communicative style. It's Nutjub 101. But somewhere in there, my mind is actually attempting to make sense. You're just going to have to work really, really hard to find it.
My personal communicative style stems from a complete lack of formal education. Ninth grade, that's it. So I struggle with just about anything beyond that level. But it's taught me that you really have to make an effort to understand where a person is coming from, and not simply dismiss them as a nutjob. And sometimes that's really, really hard to do.
'A surfeit of erudition' - nicely put!I leave people floundering but it is my unconventional
use of English not a surfeit of erudition.
My dad used to say that to really understand someone, you need to be able to see things from their point of view - and that's rarely easy...My personal communicative style stems from a complete lack of formal education. Ninth grade, that's it. So I struggle with just about anything beyond that level. But it's taught me that you really have to make an effort to understand where a person is coming from, and not simply dismiss them as a nutjob. And sometimes that's really, really hard to do.
Yes, I have the same issue - I don't think you can lose scale until the black holes have evaporated and everything has equilibrated, in which case there can't be any useful information(?).That part I get. It's when you try to visualize the period between the two aeons that I begin to scratch my head. Once you lose scale, it would seem as though what you have left should be completely uniform, homogeneous, spaceless, and timeless. Yet somehow information transfers from one aeon to the next. But how, when it seems as if the slate should've been completely wiped clean? There would seem to be no way of differentiating one point from another point. In fact you wouldn't even have points. So how is this interim period maintaining information?
The only way that I can think of is if the transition from one aeon to the next isn't completely uniform across the entire universe, and that black holes, being isolated, somehow survive ever so slightly longer. But that's just pure speculation on my part. I have no idea what the theory says, what the math says, or if this is simply nonsense. It's purely a guess.
Yes, me too; it's a clever idea, and I expect that Penrose has some mathematics behind it, but it does feel just a bit like... cheating.I like Penrose's idea, I just don't see how information can survive from one aeon to the next.
It makes sense to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯See, this is an example of my communicative style. It's Nutjub 101. But somewhere in there, my mind is actually attempting to make sense. You're just going to have to work really, really hard to find it.
I'm using it as it is meant to be used. Where did you find your definition? YOUR use of it is meaningless since you don't accept a realm without duration beginning and end. That's eternity. Not an infinite duration which wouldn't be another realm at all but an extension of this one.Not if we use your definition of eternal, as unchanging. Which means that anything that doesn't change, doesn't experience the passage of time. So there would be no such thing as "before" it change
That was my first impression, but then I thought about it for a while, and I realized that we're talking about a period immediately after the last remnants of mass, (these supermassive black holes) have collided, and their mass has supposedly had time to evaporate. So what we're left with is the imprint of the gravitational waves from those collisions. What type of time frame we're talking about I don't know. But at this point the universe must be massive, so even traveling at the speed of light those gravitational waves may still be detectable even many trillions of years later, after the masses that created them have evaporated.Yes, I have the same issue - I don't think you can lose scale until the black holes have evaporated and everything has equilibrated, in which case there can't be any useful information(?).
Emerges from what?... something first gives rise to physical reality, and then that physical reality gives rise to consciousness. A two step process.
But is that initial physical step really necessary? What if consciousness simply emerges on it's own?
It's true that the rules that govern the mechanism that creates our internal reality (i.e. the brain) are those of external reality, but the result of that creative process are rules we devise to govern the internally created reality itself; i.e. attempts to describe how the external reality behaves. The history of ideas shows that the rules we create are constantly being refined or replaced by more accurate descriptions.I would question the idea that they conflict, because I would maintain that the rules that govern an internally created reality must be identical to the rules that govern an externally created reality.
Yes; there are generally two ways 'consciousness creates reality' is meant. One is 'consciousness creates our internal reality', the other is 'consciousness creates external reality'. Both are wrong; the first is better put as 'consciousness experiences our internal reality' (which is created by unconscious processes); the second is typically based on a misunderstanding of measurement in quantum mechanics.Conflicts generally arise when people get the misconception that consciousness "creates" reality. It doesn't, it's simply an effect that's simultaneously manifested as physical reality.
That's a question we can't answer without evidence. The evidence we have is roughly as I described above.So the question is, which is easier to create, physical reality, i.e actual physical stuff, or simply the illusion of actual physical stuff? Both follow the exact same rules, and would look exactly the same, but which is easier to create?
Is there any thing that exists that didn't exist as potential in the first cause? What potential can be in the first cause? Isn't change potential converted to act?So yes, there could be an unchanging God, but is such a God necessary, or even logical? I don't think so, and until I see some sort of argument to the contrary, that would seem to be the most reasonable conclusion.
But those gravitational waves have energy and scale, and they gravitate in their own right, so while they're around, the universe isn't scale-free or in equilibrium.That was my first impression, but then I thought about it for a while, and I realized that we're talking about a period immediately after the last remnants of mass, (these supermassive black holes) have collided, and their mass has supposedly had time to evaporate. So what we're left with is the imprint of the gravitational waves from those collisions. What type of time frame we're talking about I don't know. But at this point the universe must be massive, so even traveling at the speed of light those gravitational waves may still be detectable even many trillions of years later, after the masses that created them have evaporated.
So I could imagine that the imprint of those gravitational waves could survive the transition from one aeon to the next.
Why is that a problem?But I don't really like that idea. Because that would mean that I could align those aeons linearly, one after the other, infinitely into the past. And that's a problem for me. Because no matter how many possible iterations of the universe there are, (and there would be many) each of them would have to occur an infinite number of times.
How would that work? the process Penrose describes is sequential.So I would rather not align them linearly, I would rather stack them.
There are two meanings for eternity, one is the common definition you'll find in most dictionaries, involving time without end, infinite time, or infinite duration. The other is a philosophical religious definition (a special pleading for God) that involves timelessness, atemporality, and/or being 'outside' time, whatever that means. It's open to various criticisms of inconsistency or incoherence.I'm using it as it is meant to be used. Where did you find your definition? YOUR use of it is meaningless since you don't accept a realm without duration beginning and end. That's eternity. Not an infinite duration which wouldn't be another realm at all but an extension of this one.
The consciousness conceiving the 'external' reality is unaware of its own capacity of conceiving its own models. (Who said 'self aware' is absolute anyway?)One tricky question the first explanation raises is, why, if consciousness created or creates external reality, does it so often come as a complete surprise?
The consistencies we perceive and share amongst ourselves (via language) are consistent with us all sharing a common mind type and thus share in-common meanings within those descriptions for describing reality.FrumiousBandersnatch said:How could we create something consistent and coherent without knowing we were doing it? - and wouldn't that mean we were unconscious of doing so?
How any human could actually function without the human concept of time, (yes .. a scalar), would be 'a first'! Just describing what they mean by timelessness, invariably requires invoking the time concept.The other is a philosophical religious definition (a special pleading for God) that involves timelessness, atemporality, and/or being 'outside' time, whatever that means. It's open to various criticisms of inconsistency or incoherence.
Now there's the $64,000 question. And unless you're willing to go with the ever popular "God did it", than it's a question I can't answer for ya. I can speculate like crazy though. That I'm good at, but I recommend keeping plenty of salt handy.Emerges from what?
Yup, perfectly logical. But I could simply attribute this to the anthropic principle. Consciousness will always exist in a reality that's perfectly logical, whether that reality is external or simply an illusion, because consciousness couldn't exist anywhere else. So reality will always be coherent.All the evidence we have suggests that consciousness is the result of a particular mode of brain function, a set of processes, and that it's a result of evolution.
This is a situation in which I don't have a compelling reason. But the question is...is it possible that I'm right? If so, then my next task is to figure out how to prove that I'm right, or just as acceptable, how to prove that I'm wrong.What compelling reason do you have to dismiss the evidence we do have in favour of something that contradicts it?
But as the above quote points out, these rules are descriptive not prescriptive. I should perhaps reiterate, that I don't think that consciousness can actively create reality. I think that while consciousness and its accompanying illusion are inseparable, the former can't "create" the latter. The latter is simply a self evolvng illusion, governed by the Principle of Sufficient Reason, for everything, there will always be a coherent explanation. The anthropic principle will always guarantee that the illusion will remain coherent.The history of ideas shows that the rules we create are constantly being refined or replaced by more accurate descriptions.
To further repeat myself, consciousness doesn't create reality. Reality is simply a self evolving illusion. But that illusion must adhere to certain rules. Basically, it must remain coherent and consistent, because if it doesn't then it violates the anthropic principle and consciousness couldn't exist. So just as consciousness isn't in charge of creating the illusion, it's not in charge of keeping it coherent either. What consciousness expects to see doesn't matter, because it's not in charge.One tricky question the first explanation raises is, why, if consciousness created or creates external reality, does it so often come as a complete surprise? How could we create something consistent and coherent without knowing we were doing it?
Oh yeah? Whatever you mean by the term 'reality', can be shown, via objective testing, as requiring a conscious mind .. so there .. and no need for mentioning 'creating' reality.To further repeat myself, consciousness doesn't create reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?