Pythonism

writing about my life

Archive for the ‘Physics’ Category

Living and nonliving cosmoses

leave a comment »

How many universes can there be ? and what is the ratio of life-producing-universes to (so called) fruitless ones ?

What was the first seed universe like ? What about other universes to ours ?

If ours is the only one then why life ? It seems so unlikely as a one off. Or are there many and living ones evolve among nonliving ones ? If a universe contained no consciousness then would it ever move out of a giant superposed state ? Could there be a multiverse which allocated the saved energy from a nonliving universe to a living one ?

IF THE PURPOSE OF A UNIVERSE AS INITIATED BY A CREATOR IS TO PERFORM A COMPUTATION, THEN HOW IS THE INPUT PROVIDED ? AND HOW THE OUTPUT YIELDED ?

Suggestion:

Input is given at commencement through settings of fundamental constants

Output is given in every successive state… each frame of the great movie is one vast output

Thus creator needs “reference dimensions” (the coiled up parts of the 11) to be able to inspect the details of each frame. In order to make use of this output the storage capability of the parent system must be huge but maybe “divine” beings can access that much power.

Yes I do honour Douglas Adams !

Here’s a diagram which shows a possible supercosmology of multiple created universes. Just for fun really but its nice to dream about possibilities.

supertime

Advertisements

Written by Luke Dunn

July 28, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Posted in Physics

Tagged with , , ,

More on a Theory of the Living Universe

with 2 comments

The Theory of the Living Universe
Perhaps many theories of the universe are possible.
If several provide equal and maximal descriptive power then how might we group these possible theories?
I would suggest that each possible theory prioritises its starting facts in a different order. Looking at conventional modern physics it seems that the existence of life and consciousness have not been placed as primary facts which urgently need an explanation in a satisfactory theory.
Perhaps we could look at a possible list for conventional science as follows:
Energy exists
Matter exists in many forms
Start with these simple facts and build on up.
if anything seems too complex to include then ignore it
The theory of the living universe starts with a different set of suppositions :the primary need is to explain the existence of life and mind…
life exists
mind exists
start with these at highest priority to explain
work down to simpler systems as the need arises
Perhaps we then see a new role for “primitive” cosmologies and creation myths, they are inevitable stopping posts on the way to true understanding. Maybe each primitive notion is superseded but the developmental process of human understanding must honour each stage, just as to understand, say, Number Theory, its historical development must be understood.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Luke Dunn

July 25, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Posted in Physics

Tagged with , , ,

A New Physics Of Life

with one comment

Physics traditionally studies dead matter. All our analysis of biological systems is a reductionistic one that aims to reduce the extreme complexity of living systems into a form that can be explained using the ordinary laws of physics as they apply to matter and energy. The vitalists thought that life consisted of an indivisible life essence but the whole lesson of reductionism is that once you chop things into sufficiently small parts all you can see is non-living systems.

In modern parlance we describe the appearance of complex behaviours in a system built from its component parts as emergence. Emergent qualities include such things as consciousness. A theory of the living universe would have to explain how complex emergent phenomena arise.

The emergent characteristics of a simple system like a living cell are a consequence of the microscale interactions of the particles composing it. However the richness and complexity of an emergent phenomenon such as the cell would be intractably complex to deduce by simply knowing about the physics of the particles that compose it. And yet at some level the potential for any kind of emergent phenomena must be present within the laws of physics. So we become suspicious that a theory of Everything which could be summarised in a short mathematical form would not indeed contain enough information to explain every kind of phenomenon in the universe – we need a law of emergence. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Luke Dunn

July 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm