The 4th Copernican Revolution

#1
http://nautil.us/issue/64/the-unseen/the...revolution

EXCERPT: . . . The same fundamental laws apply throughout the entire domain we can survey with telescopes. Were that not so—were atoms “anarchic” in their behavior—we’d have made no progress in understanding the observable universe. But this observable domain may not be all of physical reality; some cosmologists speculate that “our” big bang wasn’t the only one—that physical reality is grand enough to encompass an entire “multiverse.”

We can only see a finite volume—a finite number of galaxies. [...] Even conservative astronomers are confident that the volume of spacetime within range of our telescopes—what astronomers have traditionally called “the universe”—is only a tiny fraction of the aftermath of the Big Bang. We’d expect far more galaxies located beyond the horizon [...] each of which (along with any intelligences it hosts) will evolve rather like our own.

It’s a familiar idea that if enough monkeys were given enough time, they would write the works of Shakespeare [...] But the number of “failures” that would precede eventual success is a number with about 10 million digits. [...] To produce a specific set of letters as long as a book is so immensely improbable that it wouldn’t have happened even once within the observable universe. When we throw dice we eventually get a long succession of sixes, but (unless they are biased) we wouldn’t expect to get more than 100 in a row even if we went on for a billion years.

However, if the universe stretches far enough, everything could happen—somewhere far beyond our horizon there could even be a replica of Earth. This requires space to be VERY big—described by a number not merely with a million digits but with 10 to the power of 100 digits [...] Given enough space and time, all conceivable chains of events could be played out somewhere, though almost all of these would occur far out of range of any observations we could conceivably make.[...]

All this could be encompassed within the aftermath of “our” big bang, which could extend over a stupendous volume. But that’s not all. What we’ve traditionally called “the universe”—the aftermath of “our” big bang—may be just one island, just one patch of space and time, in a perhaps infinite archipelago. There may have been many big bangs, not just one. Each constituent of this “multiverse” could have cooled down differently, maybe ending up governed by different laws. Just as Earth is a very special planet among zillions of others, so—on a far grander scale—our big bang could have been a rather special one. [...] Our current concept of physical reality could be as constricted, in relation to the whole, as the perspective of the Earth available to a plankton whose “universe” is a spoonful of water.

Could this be true? A challenge for 21st-century physics is to answer two questions. First, are there many “big bangs” rather than just one? Second—and this is even more interesting—if there are many, are they all governed by the same physics?

If we’re in a multiverse, it would imply a fourth and grandest Copernican revolution; we’ve had the Copernican revolution itself, then the realization that there are billions of planetary systems in our galaxy; then that there are billions of galaxies in our observable universe. But now that’s not all. The entire panorama that astronomers can observe could be a tiny part of the aftermath of “our” big bang, which is itself just one bang among a perhaps infinite ensemble.

[...] At first sight, the concept of parallel universes might seem too arcane to have any practical impact. But it may (in one of its variants) actually offer the prospect of an entirely new kind of computer: the quantum computer, which can transcend the limits of even the fastest digital processor by, in effect, sharing the computational burden among a near infinity of parallel universes....

MORE: http://nautil.us/issue/64/the-unseen/the...revolution
Reply
#2
(Sep 28, 2018 04:22 PM)C C Wrote: http://nautil.us/issue/64/the-unseen/the...revolution

Could this be true? A challenge for 21st-century physics is to answer two questions. First, are there many “big bangs” rather than just one? Second—and this is even more interesting—if there are many, are they all governed by the same physics?

And according to all known science, we'll never be able to answer these questions...so such speculation is a waste of time.
Reply
#3
(Sep 28, 2018 04:22 PM)C C Wrote: http://nautil.us/issue/64/the-unseen/the...revolution

EXCERPT: . . . The same fundamental laws apply throughout the entire domain we can survey with telescopes. Were that not so—were atoms “anarchic” in their behavior—we’d have made no progress in understanding the observable universe. But this observable domain may not be all of physical reality; some cosmologists speculate that “our” big bang wasn’t the only one—that physical reality is grand enough to encompass an entire “multiverse.”
...
It’s a familiar idea that if enough monkeys were given enough time, they would write the works of Shakespeare [...] But the number of “failures” that would precede eventual success is a number with about 10 million digits. [...] To produce a specific set of letters as long as a book is so immensely improbable that it wouldn’t have happened even once within the observable universe. When we throw dice we eventually get a long succession of sixes, but (unless they are biased) we wouldn’t expect to get more than 100 in a row even if we went on for a billion years.
...
First, are there many “big bangs” rather than just one? Second—and this is even more interesting—if there are many, are they all governed by the same physics?
I'll accept the basic premise and follow on to see where it leads.
So we assume that there are a virtually infinite number of universes, with all manner of laws and instances therein.

Conclusion A
Thus there must be an almost virtually infinite number of universes wherein variations of you and I reside.
Likewise, there should at least be some universes, where consciousness manifests as virtually perfect 
within the first second of the Universe's existence - out of sheer probability. So we must conclude that there
is a similar chance of intelligent life being in a universe as there is a God. Of course some Universes may
have an omnipotent God, others may have a slightly error-prone god.

Conclusion B
In a godless universe much like ours, there would be a significant chance that a flaw would
cause the universe to destroy itself at any point in time. Just as if we allowed monkeys to write software
and found a working program of theirs, its is highly likely that our next keystroke will trigger an event that
causes a fatal error. This occurs often with good programmers so is far more likely with a random/monkey origin.

SO:
If we realize that our universe cannot be like B, for the simple reason that we assume the universe is not
going to end with your next keystroke, the only alternative is A, or that the universe does not have a random origin.

Thus God must exist. Even if only as a result of randomness.
Reply
#4
(Oct 8, 2018 03:05 PM)Jon Bain Wrote: If we realize that our universe cannot be like B, for the simple reason that we assume the universe is not
going to end with your next keystroke, the only alternative is A, or that the universe does not have a random origin.

Thus God must exist. Even if only as a result of randomness.

It might not end with your next keystroke because the earth will end before the universe. The Big Freeze is a popular scenario, though.

I'll stick with conclusion B.
Reply
#5
Certain terms used in computer physics that would likely find their way into universe building:

Non-volatile and Redundancy.

This would imply that while every instance in time we might consider as not being recorded, the ultimate truth would actually be that it is recorded, at least in a method of backing up to make sure that a simple keypress (or virus) wouldn't be enough to wipe it all out.

Redundancy doesn't have to be just a recorded copy. The best methodology actually suggests that the universe we observe is a multiworld composite, where many universes work together to create an ethereal mirror array (not cloud™) that isn't just subsequent sub-stratum copies but actual different instances of spacetime as well (those copies don't follow "time arrows" in the same sense as how we observe the universe from out perspective, since at that level of universe building time is a construct).

The reason for this use of composite spacetime, is that utilising this blend of spacetime allows the creation of sequential causality (how we observe the universe) as well as creating a heuristic methodology (for a healing method when paradoxes are made) to make sure that time/space can't be easily broken.

As for a "Big Freeze", that in this model would be entirely on us. If we can't see how the universe is made and don't participate in adding to it (as being apart of it's Composite model) then we (and potentially an infinite number of parallel universes) will cease to add new content (which can be considered not just entropy but energy.) (Of course the inverse could be true too much entropy could increase energy output or increase mass)

The model I pose actually implies that each parallel universe would be maintaining a single unit of quanta that is a part of the composite model. (We'd be charged with maintaining it's non-volatile nature, it's energy amount and it would be one volume of quanta in an infinite universe filled with subsequent parallel quanta volumes.) The problem of course is that it's an extremely fringe field and has yet to have any actual scientific discussion on the subject.
Reply
#6
There could be many universes with so many possibilities that a god exists. Yet there could be a possibility that nothing, as in NO THING exists. Back to square 1, God or nothing. If half of those two possibilities is true then the other half isn't, which in my mind tells me that everything is not possible. Maybe its more correct to say that impossibilities are infinite.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)