I feel like I need a trigger warning for existential questions.
Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
21–30 of 44 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#22> If the conditions at the bottom of two black hole "singularity"s are the same - you would expect parallel, equal universes to be generated each time. That's a strong no (for any sufficiently complex physical setup with moving parts, falling glasses won't shatter the same way twice). Two things here are relevant: 1) Lorentz (Butterfly) and Smale (Horseshoe Map) both proved that in some physical systems you can alway…
What if there's an infinite, apparently random but actually fixed map underlying everything?
So like physics appears to have uncertainty but if you are outside it you can see that it's just playing back according to the map.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#23I feel like I need a trigger warning for existential questions.
Sorry :(
I feel for you; I wish I had a trigger warning on existential questions this AM too.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#24Try thinking of the "big bang" as more of phase change where there was something "before" that was not like the "now" at all. A black hole is also a phase change that expands, but we really can't experiment with either deep time or black holes... yet.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly... Now you could argue there is an even more complex civilization running simulations of the simulation-running civilization. But you are creating this ever increasing complexity you cannot get away from. In that aspect it's a bit similar to the Gods hypothesis
Very frustrating and you end up with the same problem. I have some fun thoughts around this problem which is maybe just as a lonely sculptor might sculpt a human-like figure that they can converse with to feel less alone (and from "one" make "two"), maybe a universal consciousness decided to create something & the illusion of "separatedness" (from one, many) in consciousness to feel less alone. Hence make a universe…
Science doesn't apply to anything outside the universe (since we cannot observe it), so the question of who/why is a philosophical one. In fact, "why are we here" is one of the functions of religion, although not all attempt to answer it. For instance, the Jewish and Christian answer is we are God's children. But the only way we can know is if whatever is beyond the universe (if anything) communicates with us. Then there is the question of how and what form can such a being communicate with us. Any such communication would, by definition, be super-natural, but once the communication happens (via an experience of some sort or as an artifact) it necessarily becomes part of the natural world, either as part of our neurons that record the experience or as the physical artifact. So we cannot see the super-natural part (which is sort of obvious), and if any such being has communicated with us, we will need some sort of faith to accept it the physical experience/artifact as from the outside, especially if we did not personally receive the communication.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#26> If the conditions at the bottom of two black hole "singularity"s are the same - you would expect parallel, equal universes to be generated each time. That's a strong no (for any sufficiently complex physical setup with moving parts, falling glasses won't shatter the same way twice). Two things here are relevant: 1) Lorentz (Butterfly) and Smale (Horseshoe Map) both proved that in some physical systems you can alway…
What if there's an infinite, apparently random but actually fixed map underlying everything? So like physics appears to have uncertainty but if you are outside it you can see that it's just playing back according to the map.
If our physics is actually deterministic,
Then
- how do you measure with sufficient accuracy to (well) beyond the Heisenberg limit, everything within a relativistic radius in order to counter chaotic turbulence
and, then, once you have done so,
- how do you compute forward the rather large number of "grains" just measured in the fine time steps required to counter chaotic turbulence?
Leaving aside just how difficult (against the scale of the universe) such exercises are, let's return to the mathematical certainty of proof by both Lorentz and Smale ... any tiny deviation, even magnitudes of order finer than Heisenberg will eventually bite any claim to the certainity of determinism hard in the arse.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if there's an infinite, apparently random but actually fixed map underlying everything? So like physics appears to have uncertainty but if you are outside it you can see that it's just playing back according to the map.
If our physics is actually deterministic, Then - how do you measure with sufficient accuracy to (well) beyond the Heisenberg limit, everything within a relativistic radius in order to counter chaotic turbulence and, then, once you have done so, - how do you compute forward the rather large number of "grains" just measured in the fine time steps required to counter chaotic turbulence? Leaving aside just how difficult…
And yet it's unknowable.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#28This video about deep time is pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
Melodysheep (the creator) has some great stuff on the topic.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#29This video about deep time is pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA Melodysheep (the creator) has some great stuff on the topic.
Epic - this fits into category 2 with the "big crunch" situation, but the nothingness / heat death of the universe one also seems possible. I think the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole consisting of all black holes in the universe would probably overwhelm the expansion force and draw everything into it, but who knows.
Very cool - thanks for sending.
Re: Ask HN: Is it black holes all the way up?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simulation theory is not very satisfying. It might answer some of the questions we have but leaves a much bigger one: who/what/how made this simulation?
I agree - and why? My fun answer for this one is that there is a future civilization facing collapse / extinction / "great filter" and they're (humans or AI) running infinite life simulations to try to determine what actions will give them the greatest probability of escape / survival. We're living in one of those simulated worlds. But that's very human / AI centric, and doesn't answer any of the same questions highe…
It is either nation state actor trying to breed a defence AI, or a private entity trying to get an edge trading. Those are the most powerful forces I see.