/sci/ - Science & Math

What do you think of this hypothesis?

1. The universe is pre-calculated by the overall universe. Infinity is known.

2. Time is an illusion; the overall universe knows every position of every piece of matter in the universe and stores all positions in separate instances. So you have infinite amounts of combinations of matter stored in separate slides, the progression from one to another is the illusion of a conscious observer. This information is projected from a single source.

3. The start of the universe is not the big bang, but the first conscious entity able to perceive some aspect of the universe. The overall universe then projects the rest of the known universe as the knowledge of the conscious observer(s) expands.

4. The overall universe is very efficient and only materializes the universes that create consciousness. All other universes are known but do not really exist, since they do not formulate observers. The reason why our universe appears structured is because that structure is required for us to exist; a chaotic universe tends to not create consciousness. This is why natural and physical laws tend to stay uniform and matter is not infinite.

5. Consciousness can exist in different time directions. Within our universe there may be a conscious entity that exists in reverse time direction to us, all of their fundamental laws are reversed and they appear to function in reverse to us and vice versa for them. For such an entity the end of the universe is the beginning is the end. The big bang will appear like an implosion.

6. There are infinite amount of universes, but there is a limited amount of universes that formulate consciousness since the structure for consciousness has to be very specific.

- ASM

Is it possible that the arrow of time is caused by the expansion of time?

Give me your most glorious science!

I'm gonna try this again in the hopes this time there actually are knowledgeable people around.

I find the concept of multiple universes somewhat problematic. A good hypothesis is one from which testable predictions follow. The notion of multiple universes is inherently untestable because, by definition, alternate universes exist outside of the (observable) universe. This makes the anthropic principle less valid in scientific discussion, because it relies on the a-priori assumption of multiple universes.

Would you agree or am I misinterpreting the multiverse notion?

I find the concept of multiple universes somewhat problematic. A good hypothesis makes testable predictions. The very nature of 'other universes' makes it impossible to test this hypothesis because they are by definition outside of the (observable) universe. This means the anthropic principle (elegant as it may be) is invalid when it comes to scientific discussion.

Am I misinterpreting the multiverse idea?

Hello /sci/ I'm currently enrolled in a course called Visions of the Universe. Its a rather basic astronomy course, but today we discussed something that got me thinking. My professor was discussing the age of the universe, and how we estimate it by assuming that since the universe is expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other, that at one point in the past they must have been practically on top of each other. This would mean that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving. This all makes perfect sense, assuming that the universe has been expanding since its birth, and that it actually did all begin at a single point. This is what got me thinking. The idea of the universe beginning at a single point immediately brings to mind the big bang theory, correct? The theory is widely supported, even among some religious groups, however there are those who disacknowledge the theory based on the belief of a higher power. Some try to support it with this very belief, saying that this particle from which it all began must have come from somewhere, and that this is the work of a higher power. If you then ask such a person where this higher power came from, the most common answer would be that they have always been; they are eternal, forever existing. This is where things fall apart for me. Couldn't I say the same for this particle? It seems to me that by searching for the answer you will always find yourself faced with an unanswerable question. And my question for you /sci/ is when faced with this infinite sea of unsupportable answers, what do you do?

To all non-trolling denizens of 4chan:

While peeling potatoes today, I stumbled upon a question regarding the origins of our universe.
Big bang theory dictates that in the beginning, there was a singularity which contained all matter which exists today. Since matter didn't really differentiate until after the 'bang', why is our universe not symmetrical among any axes?

As in, if the singularity was a perfectly round (or zero-dimensional) object with a uniform composition, how have unique objects and features of our universe been created?

hai /sci/, what existed before the big bang?