Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
So I hope this has qualified for others your observation that I am indeed weird in my thinking.... but that I think nevertheless.
|
Hi Alex 
Firstly, it was a little unkind of me to insinuate you were weird in your thinking, please accept a $2.00 scratchie that should arrive in the mail at some stage in your future 
Next, as I read your short reply, I thought of many things paragraph by paragraph that I was going to say, but dumped it all when near the bottom you mentioned 'Nature'.
It was then that in an instant I could see that you totally do not understand a basic fundamental point, that if you did, if I could find the right words to demonstrate one single idea, that you would start to understand everything else.
You used the word 'Nature', when I used words like existence, reality and so forth. I am glad you used the word 'nature' because now I challenge you openly in this court of our peers to explain exactly what you think 'Nature' is.
Seeing this is my reply, I will take the liberty of explaining what I think it is, and why it is such a compelling factor for singularities, Big Bang's and so on.
A quick review of the Black hole before we start however, just so I don't get misquoted out of context. A Black hole, surrounded by an event Horizon, which is a location or a point where to go further you will not be able to escape the force of the Black Hole itself, commonly referred to as the point of no return.
The black hole, which is defined not by the hole itself but by the consequences of coming within range of the forces (I do not use the word gravity here purposefully) of the Black hole.
The passage through the Black hole which really means the stresses and changes (spaghettification) to all matter, which increases as you journey towards the 'End' of the Black Hole, which we call a singularity.
At the singularity all physics is altered, all science stops, all matter, energy and force ceases to exist, sort of like death.
I ended my simplistic review of a black hole with the word 'DEATH', I did this intentionally, because the words 'Nature' and 'Death' are synonymous with each other, they are in fact the same thing.
In nature, IMHO, we see life through birth, the struggles for survival, the evolution, the growth and finally the death, of everything that we consider to be 'Alive'.
I believe that 'Nature' is a perfect way of explaining the 'Universe', of explaining the way that matter comes into existence, in my mind, it is exactly the same as we experience 'Nature' here on Earth.
If you agree with my version of nature i.e. birth, growth, survival, death then simply (forget all that you ever learned or read from others) and apply the 4 main nature keywords to the universe as a whole.
Let's go, a simple exercise, lets see if we can create a model that fits and then figure out the math afterwards.
Birth, growth, survival, death:
Birth: We see birth on a local level in the magnificent creation of a human child, I would think that nearly everyone marvels at this, yet after many billions of human births and trillions of animal births, we still 'Don't get it', but we accept it because we see the result.
On a larger scale we see star birth and can explain that pretty satisfactorily.
On an even larger scale we look at the birth of a galaxy however I discount this is true birth in the sense I am speaking of, I believe that galaxies are more about formations, or locations of stars due to forces which by and large we understand.
What of the final scale, the Universe itself? Answer this, if the smallest parts and the medium sized parts follow a blueprint i.e. they are born (Birth), then why break away from this theory and try to suggest that the Universe itself was not born?
To me, it does not make sense to accept birth at every level along the way but then change the method at the final level. If nature tells us anything at all, it is that there is a uniform and never ending theme in nature itself i.e. the continual birth, evolution, death cycle. It's everywhere in the Universe, so why then does it not apply to the Universe itself as a whole.
Growth: Once again examples of living things having growth is everywhere, at every level, regardless of size. The very small, through to the very large, everything seems to grow, this is a recurring theme in nature IMHO. So then once again I ask, why if everything inside the universe tends to have this characteristic, why stop at just the Universes contents, why not go all the way and apply it overall, to the universe itself.
We all believe the universe is expanding because we have empirical proof, so we should all agree that this is growth, the second element of my interpretation of 'Nature'
Survival: This is a tricky one but overall on the balance of probability, I believe that most life strives to survive. I do not accept and cannot subscribe to the notion that anything that is living, would willing go to it's demise. Not human, animal, plant or other wise.
Can you apply the desire for survival to galaxies, to the Universe itself? Well that is a good question, and the answer revolves around the word desire. If you ask the question using the word desire you would answer in the negative, because galaxies can't desire things.
If you ask the question a different way, say like this, Given a galactic formation, and providing no new outside force was introduced, would the formation remain as it is? The answer would be positive. Not wanting to split straws on whether you consider a galaxy a living thing, that is a different debate, but trying to draw your attention to the similarities we see in Nature being consistent, even when speaking of a galaxy.
It is my opinion, that unless something new is introduced, a galaxy would be consistent and happy (that is the wrong word) to remain the way it is, further I believe that if a potentially changing force was introduced, that the existing galaxy schema would resit the change until such time as it was overcome by a stronger force. In my mind, this is close to the rhythm of survival in nature.
Death: This the easiest to understand and observe everywhere, death is our constant companion, for without it, we would not exist. Life cannot begin unless death has preceded it and so on.
Locally and at planetary level, star level and even at a galactic level, we see examples of death. It depends on your interpretation of death when speaking galactic, but I put it to you that death in this sense is to become something totally different than it used to be i.e. gas and space debris accretes into a galaxy, to me this is a great interpretation of the life/death cycle.
Why then once again I ask you can't we apply this universal constant to the Universe as a whole? When everything in nature seems to follow a certain pattern, regardless of scale and dynamic force, why can't you accept it at the next highest level and say that the universe itself, is Born, Grows, struggles to survive and finally dies.
Whether the death is in a singularity or not, in this argument is not the point, the point is that the universe was seemingly born, thus at some point in time will probably die, then what? All for nothing? Or is there something else going on here? Is Nature going to continue on it's pattern and give birth to a new universe?
I prefer to believe yes. I prefer to think that there is a sense and natural rhythm to the universe. I prefer to think that every small part of the universe goes into making the universe as a whole and the fate and rules that govern the parts is the same that governs the whole.
Yes Alex, like you, I make some gigantic assumptions and yes due to ignorance I could be shot full of holes at certain parts, but in an overall sense, is this all for nothing? If so, to coin those immortal words from Contact, "It seems an awful waste".
Over to you champ 
|