Live data from Hacker News

Roger Penrose claims our Universe has been through multiple Big Bangs

bigthink.com

121–130 of 248 posts

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

#121

IANAP - why are these ideas so controversial? The article seems to suggest he has some (potentially) supporting evidence, and I don't have an intuition for how damning the counter-argument is ("This would necessitate making all particles lose mass as the universe gets old." Again, IANAP and physics can get weird).

it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable

> it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable

That can't be true; those are two completely unrelated concepts. Compare "we're living in a simulation", which became mainstream despite the fact that (1) it is even more unfalsifiable than this is; and (2) it is identical in every way to the old, no-longer-interesting concept of "you are a brain in a jar".

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

#122

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…

I went to a catholic high school pre 2000s and have nothing but respect for their teachings which was entirely opened to science, questioning religion itself, learning of other religions and using a metaphor interpretation of the bible. That was a change from young earth creationism that I was brought up in.

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

#123
post #86

Here is Dr. Carl Sagan describing this in his Cosmos series (Episode 10, start at 36mins 30secs into the episode): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcpJj4g8IxM

FYI: I needed to VPN over to Mexico to watch this. Worth it though, super interesting/terrifying. Thanks for sharing!

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

#124

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…

> 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... Accepting God created the universe just moves the big questions one level of indirection upward: Why does God exist? Why does God exist with the characteristics that he does (e.g. why is God X instead of Y)? It's unclear how this is more satis…

> It's unclear how this is more satisfying on an intellectual level. It's only more satisfying on an emotional level, as it usually comes with the belief of a personal God that loves and wants the best for you, not to mention an afterlife.

This idea of treating intellect and emotions as a dichotomy rather than as two inseparable parts of a harmonious whole has a history – it goes back to the ancient Greeks. Maybe we should question that idea, rather than just assuming it must be true?

And, is an afterlife really that implausible? Putting "supernatural" accounts of it to one side, how sure can you be that the quantum immortality hypothesis is false? Or: in an infinite future, any event with non-zero probability, no matter how remote its chance, will almost certainly eventually happen. Since the probability of our spontaneous resurrection from the dead (through thermal and/or quantum fluctuations) is unimaginably tiny yet strictly speaking non-zero, in a spatiotemporally infinite universe (as in eternal inflation), almost surely it will eventually happen. If the universe is infinite, an afterlife is almost certain; we don't really know whether the universe is infinite, so let's say that's 50-50, which makes an afterlife 50-50 – even if just as a Boltzmann brain. Of course, you can argue against this if you make certain assumptions about the criterion of personal identity, but we really don't know if those assumptions are true – which brings the probability of an afterlife back to 50-50. And then, if the simulation hypothesis is true (another 50-50), it would be very easy for our simulators to give us an afterlife if they wanted, and they might even feel ethically obliged to do so.

If the probability of an afterlife is actually 50-50, why do some people insist its probability is close to zero? Emotional reasons, perhaps? If you don't accept the religious claim that an afterlife is going to be fundamentally just–eternity suddenly becomes terrifying. What if our eternal fate is to spend aeons as a Boltzmann brain perpetually slipping in and out of existence in the cold darkness of space, a mind whose experiences have the bare minimum of coherence to count as experiences of a mind? What if our simulators are mischievous rather than benevolent, and have designed for us an afterlife in which they have fun at our expense?

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

#125
post #123
post #86

Here is Dr. Carl Sagan describing this in his Cosmos series (Episode 10, start at 36mins 30secs into the episode): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcpJj4g8IxM

FYI: I needed to VPN over to Mexico to watch this. Worth it though, super interesting/terrifying. Thanks for sharing!

How did that quote go?

>Artificial constrains on technologies of abundance.

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

#126

This reminds me of something I read some time back. It was about hypervelocity stars, stars with escape velocity. These are stars that are moving fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of their galaxy. If they are escaping their galaxy and moving away from the galactic center, they may also be beyond the pull of any retraction. This, in turn, would mean the subsequent post-retraction Big Bang contains less matt…

Ah but then you'd have to explain how God started, and the problem is that whatever explanation you concoct here might as well be used to explain the very thing you invoked God to explain in the first place

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable

> it's fringe because it's almost certainly nonfalsifiable That can't be true; those are two completely unrelated concepts. Compare "we're living in a simulation", which became mainstream despite the fact that (1) it is even more unfalsifiable than this is; and (2) it is identical in every way to the old, no-longer-interesting concept of "you are a brain in a jar".

I would consider “we’re living in a simulation” to be fringe. And that anyone who claims with any certainty that we are living in a simulation is a crackpot.

Speculating that we might be living in a simulation is of course all in good fun.

An idea being popular does not mean it is not fringe. Otherwise any sci-fi trope from the Matrix or Interstellar could be called “mainstream”. A large number of people also need to believe it is true with a high degree of conviction.

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

#128

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…

As an atheist, I have no problem with "God created the universe", as in "something/somebody" that has no interactions with us. It would have no effect on me (Epicureanism).

The big jump is between "god created the universe" and "that god is the one". And I'm not talking about all the contradictions and terrible things in or the absurdity of things like "the son of god saved humankind from offending god (sin)" but there's no (good) answer to a simple fact: "children's cancer", since the official religious answer is "we cannot understand (god's plan)".

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

#129
post #19

> What proof does the physicist have for this theory he dubbed “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) that goes against the current Big Bang dogma? It doesn't go against the current "dogma", as the Big Bang theory only covers history up until a fraction of a second after the big bang. Anything before that is basically fair game, even though some ideas are further out there than others. Penrose admits it's a "crazy idea o…

> Hossenfelder's thoughts about FTL travel in her video from yesterday

I didn't watch said video, but we have theories rooted in GR and Quantum Mechanics that would allow for FTL travel already using negative energy/pressure. We know there exists mechanisms to create negative pressure, like the Casimir effect. We know the universe is non-local, as per the Nobel prize awarded last year. And we are beginning to see experiments violate local causality. Who's to say we might not be able to engineer FTL travel at some point?

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

#130
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negation. The negation of nothing is something.

precisely, there has to be nothing for there to be something. also above someone mentioned our conceptual framework for modeling such an understanding as lacking, but it works well enough, it’s more difficult to accept that the entirety is a comics soup and this is what our limited sensory capacity can contrive of it. time is an excuse for this reality.

Cosmic Comics Soup!
Post reply on HN