Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 248 posts

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#61

Post by bumby »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #41
pyrolistical wrote: post #29

I don’t see what is the alternative. If it’s not cyclic how can there be something from nothing? The only solution is every thing has always existed and there is no such thing as nothing

There are alternative hypotheses like Eternal Inflation, and Blackhole Cosmology. Mathematical Universe hypothesis would have our existence merely be one expression of consistent mathematical laws, all possible variations of which exist in a level 4 multiverse. Or we could just be a Boltzmann Brain that only imagines it is a universe that started with a big bang and real physics are markedly different. It is worth ke…

>It is worth keeping in mind that reality is under no obligation to make any kind of sense to us.

I like this. It's reminds one to keep in mind that we have evolved to procreate, not necessarily understand reality accurately. Even wrong models can be useful in terms of passing along our genes.

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#62

Post by jliptzin »

GalenErso wrote: post #5

I know HN hates religion, but after being an atheist all my life, and graduating with a STEM degree (the 'S' part) from a top tier institution, I've started in the last year or so to turn to the church (Roman Catholic) and theism, both to find answers to some of life's mysteries, such as the origin of the Universe, and for personal reasons (I plan to start my initiation, starting with a baptism, within the next year…

It's perfectly fine to believe in higher powers. For instance I think it's possible (or probable) we may be living in a simulated reality within a higher dimensional universe. If that's the case, a 4 dimensional (or higher) being would certainly satisfy the Judeo-Christian description of God, since it would be able to manipulate our world in any way it wants. We're basically sprites on a computer screen and God is the programmer.

However, I fail to see how you settled on Catholicism to give you the answers you're looking for. Do you really believe all the stories in the bible actually happened? And if not, why pick Catholicism over any other major religion? And if this God does exist and wants us to worship him, why doesn't he make that more obvious, and why does he allow children to be raped and worshippers to be gunned down in his own Church?

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#63

Post by GalenErso »

markhahn wrote: post #60
GalenErso wrote: post #5

I know HN hates religion, but after being an atheist all my life, and graduating with a STEM degree (the 'S' part) from a top tier institution, I've started in the last year or so to turn to the church (Roman Catholic) and theism, both to find answers to some of life's mysteries, such as the origin of the Universe, and for personal reasons (I plan to start my initiation, starting with a baptism, within the next year…

the problem is epistemology, not aesthetics. why are you comfortable believing in things that are nonfalsifiable? that you find them comforting is not much of an argument.

Scientific theories about the origins of the Universe, such as the one that this post is about, are equally nonfalsifiable.

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#64

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

m3kw9 wrote: post #33
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility. Occam's Razor: what problem with simpler theories does this "possibility" solve?

It satisfies our believe there is nothing else but this universe, but if you think there is more than just our own universe, our universe could have been triggered by something else. It could wobble like that none the less because gravity eventually wins and everything pulls back to the center

> It satisfies our belief

What do you mean "our belief" ? Yours maybe, but it doesn't satisfy my belief, my belief is different. Or maybe, a whimsical "belief" is not enough, in itself, for theories to aspire to meet. Feelings aren't facts about the nature of the universe.

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#66

Post by markhahn »

coding123 wrote: post #8

> a claim that is not widely accepted within the cosmology community. I'd rather hear the top 5 theories rather than the officially "accepted" ones from any given "community". Want to break the speed of light? Why yes tell me and don't let them filter you.

you might be disappointed if there are no valid (falsifiable) theories. lots of people seem to think there should be an answer to every question, but what if "just because" is good enough? that answer is more about the question.

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#67

Post by markhahn »

melling wrote: post #9
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #2

Nobel Prize winners are not immune to crank thinking, usually outside of their area of speciality. There is Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Penrose also writing about consciousness having quantum mechanisms.

It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility. It all just started 13.5 billion years ago? We simply don’t know.

if it's actually "reborn", we can't know, so the question is invalid.

Penrose seems to be claiming that there is falsifiable evidence that this "incarnation" is not the only one. that's totally fringe (speculative).

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#68

Post by [deleted] »

2022-11-07 wrote: post #56
est31 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this suggestion is practically impossible to prove (or disprove), and quite fringe, but the listed examples in that article are usually of things people suggested outside of their field after they got the Nobel prize, and often things that were quite easily disproved at the time of suggestion. Meanwhile Penrose suggested CCC (2006) way before he received the Nobel prize (2020). Also, cosmology is Penrose's resea…

A lot of our well-evidenced scientific ideas today would've been practically impossible to prove at some point in history. I think people forget that all hypotheses are nothing more than thoughtful just-so stories when they're first stated.

[deleted]

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#69

Post by bawolff »

mr_mitm wrote: post #11
GalenErso wrote: post #5

I know HN hates religion, but after being an atheist all my life, and graduating with a STEM degree (the 'S' part) from a top tier institution, I've started in the last year or so to turn to the church (Roman Catholic) and theism, both to find answers to some of life's mysteries, such as the origin of the Universe, and for personal reasons (I plan to start my initiation, starting with a baptism, within the next year…

Do you think satisfaction is a good measure of what we should believe to be true?

As an atheist, what other measure should we use?

Like when it comes down to it we are all looking for answers that "satisfy" us. What else is there? Logic is just a complex way of verifying that the answers are convincing enough and thus satisfying.

Re: Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

#70

Post by rightbyte »

m3kw9 wrote: post #33
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility. Occam's Razor: what problem with simpler theories does this "possibility" solve?

It satisfies our believe there is nothing else but this universe, but if you think there is more than just our own universe, our universe could have been triggered by something else. It could wobble like that none the less because gravity eventually wins and everything pulls back to the center

> It satisfies our believe there is nothing else but this universe

Belief? Isn't the universe everything, by definition?

Post reply on HN