Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:52 PM
n2doc (26,129 posts)
What is the purpose of the Universe? Here is one possible answer.George Dvorsky The more we learn about the universe, the more we discover just how diverse all its planets, stars, nebulae and unexplained chunks of matter really are. So what is all this matter doing in our universe, other than just floating in space? Well, it just so happens that there is a theory that gives a kind of raison d'etre to our universe and all the objects flying through it. If true, it would mean that our universe is nothing more than a black hole generator, or a means to produce as many baby universes as possible. To learn more, we spoke to the man who came up with the idea. It's called the theory of Cosmological Natural Selection and it was conjured by Lee Smolin, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo. In his book, The Life of the Cosmos, Smolin proposed that Darwinian processes still apply at the extreme macro-scale and to non-biological entities. Because the universe is a potentially replicative unit, he suggests that it's subject to selectional pressures. Consequently, nearly everything the universe does is geared toward replication. more http://io9.com/5981472/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-universe-here-is-one-possible-answer
|
21 replies, 1090 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| n2doc | Feb 2013 | OP | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #1 | |
| Hissyspit | Feb 2013 | #4 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #5 | |
| Hissyspit | Feb 2013 | #6 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #9 | |
| freshwest | Feb 2013 | #8 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #10 | |
| Champion Jack | Feb 2013 | #14 | |
| lastlib | Feb 2013 | #15 | |
| freshwest | Feb 2013 | #16 | |
| rhett o rick | Feb 2013 | #13 | |
| FiveGoodMen | Feb 2013 | #2 | |
| patrice | Feb 2013 | #3 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #12 | |
| NoOneMan | Feb 2013 | #7 | |
| Warren DeMontague | Feb 2013 | #11 | |
| caraher | Feb 2013 | #17 | |
| tama | Feb 2013 | #18 | |
| Heywood J | Feb 2013 | #19 | |
| lindysalsagal | Feb 2013 | #20 | |
| eppur_se_muova | Feb 2013 | #21 |
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:20 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
1. An endlessly self-replicating, infinitely expanding fractal.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:32 PM
Hissyspit (40,088 posts)
4. But what is that fractal "in?"
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #4)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:33 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
5. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
That's the question, aint it.
My answer is, it's not "in" anything. It just is. |
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #5)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:36 PM
Hissyspit (40,088 posts)
6. Exactly.
|
Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:36 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) But where is it just? "There is no there there."
Gives me a headache just thinking about it. |
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #6)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:32 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
9. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
That's why I had to stop smoking pot, honestly.
|
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:07 PM
freshwest (31,526 posts)
8. There it is. (Dial up warning)
|
Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
And example in geography:
|
Response to freshwest (Reply #8)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:33 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
10. Oh, yeah.
|
Once you know what to look for, they're everywhere, aren't they.
|
Response to freshwest (Reply #8)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:35 PM
Champion Jack (4,422 posts)
14. Very cool!
Response to freshwest (Reply #8)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:15 PM
lastlib (3,800 posts)
15. D&*$n, we would've killed for that in the 60's..........
|
"And if your head explodes, with dark forebodings, too,
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon...." Or: "Picture yourself in a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marshmallow skies...." Or: "For it's a land unknown to Man, where fantasy is fact, So if you can, please understand, you might not come ba-aa-aaack......" (apologies for using a Nugent song.) |
Response to lastlib (Reply #15)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
freshwest (31,526 posts)
16. The light show is free with every migraine, LOL!
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #1)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:21 PM
rhett o rick (26,750 posts)
13. That's why I dont accept the label of "atheist", because there is a god and it's a fractal. nm
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:21 PM
FiveGoodMen (13,240 posts)
2. That's an incredibly teleological take on it.
|
Why not just describe what it does and not make up shit about what it's "for"?
|
Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:32 PM
patrice (47,430 posts)
3. That's apparently what Smolin is doing, TTE, What it does IS what it is for & what it does is
|
endlessly replicate the conditions for black holes that produce "fit" (in the Darwinian sense) universes that do the same thing.
Most of the comments to the article are more or less like yours. |
Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #2)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:40 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
12. I think this is more speculating on what natural processes it may be subject to.
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:37 PM
NoOneMan (1,664 posts)
7. Isn't the quantity of matter/energy of a sub-universe constrained by that of its parent?
|
So, the universe isn't replicating per se, but subdividing. Only if it is in itself expanding (fed by an expanding black hole of another universe) could its children ever hope to reach its size. I don't think then that "replicating" is necessarily the correct term. Perhaps its increasing in complexity by developing sub-universes.
|
Response to NoOneMan (Reply #7)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:40 PM
Warren DeMontague (46,361 posts)
11. Isn't the whole point of dark energy or vacuum energy that 0>0, counter intuitive as it may be?
|
If that's the case, there may be more energy than everything knows what to do with.
|
Response to NoOneMan (Reply #7)
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:56 AM
caraher (3,583 posts)
17. The Ultimate Free Lunch
|
It turns out that kind of constraint is not really constraining. Basically, a universe made of matter with space in between has positive energy bound up in its particles and negative energy in the form of gravity; those can add up to zero for something other than an empty universe.
So you can get "something" for zero energy when a new universe branches off from another one... |
Response to NoOneMan (Reply #7)
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:02 AM
tama (9,137 posts)
18. depends
|
If you start from zero energy "ontology" and symmetry of positive and negative energy, there's no quantitative limit.
|
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:18 AM
Heywood J (2,219 posts)
19. I thought it was already explained.
|
"L'enfer, c'est les autres."
|
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 07:05 PM
lindysalsagal (1,805 posts)
20. Actually, no, it's:
![]() |
Response to n2doc (Original post)
Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:42 PM
eppur_se_muova (20,763 posts)
21. Why should it have a purpose ?
|
Just because humans have purpose, we think everything else must too. We might as plausibly assume the universe has a body, complete with eyes, nose, mouth, and all the rest, just because we do.
|


