Quote:

---

Kickle said:
I think it's reasonable enough to say it has the properties ascribed to God. I wonder, do you have a take on where God is now?

---

well if the singularity had to be destroyed to become the universe then god must be dead or maybe if the universe ends it will become the singularity again but who knows its funny that no one has an answer (or at least a good one) but almost everyone thinks about it

Quote:

---

blingbling said:
its funny that no one has an answer (or at least a good one) but almost everyone thinks about it

---

Quote:

---

Kickle said:
"One day around 1981 while in San Fransisco, Professor Lenny Susskind of Stanford University, the theoretical physicist who proposed string theory, was asked to hold a private science conference. Susskind invited Stephen Hawking to present. The speech that Hawking gave led Susskind to dedicate the next 20 years of his career to finding a solution to a problem...

Hawking had proposed that black holes violate the principles of physics. This was based on the theory that black holes do not last forever, but rather that they eventually disappear. Now this is bizarre because when the black hole disappears, it leaves no trace of anything. Not even a trace of information, which is a very fundamental aspect of physics. Information can not just up and disappear. In our world, if information could just disappear, time may cease to exist, you and I may disappear, the laptop I'm typing on could vanish without a trace. The fact that information does not just disappear is the basis for our understanding of physics from the ground up. There is a constancy to information. I can trust that my computer is not going to disappear into nothingness. Its color, its mass, its location... these are parts of its information. That information, no matter by what means I destroy the computer, is going to be retained in some form. Mathematics can track the shifting nature of this information. It is supposed to be like energy, impossible to destroy.

And so Susskind tried to figure the disparity out. How can there be a theory that says black holes eat information and then disappear without a trace, and also a theory that says information simply can not disappear?

This is what he came to, rather by accident. He was walking past a hologram when he realized that 2D information was somehow creating all the components of a 3D image. That as you look at a hologram, you really do get a sense that you can see into the background at varying angles. That you can look at it from angle A and see one image, and then from angle B and see a second image. The information for both angles, which exist in a 3D world, are contained on a 2 dimensional surface.

Bam! He starts to wonder if this is what a black hole is all about. The 3D information we see "falling" into a black hole may be contained in the 2D information that we see at the event horizon. So the information never actually falls into the black hole, it is instead transformed from 3D encoding to 2D encoding while retaining the entirety of the information.

This ability for 3D information to also be contained in 2D information became known as the holographic principle and is now accepted by the physics community as a given. It has held up as a principle to everything we can test it on.

This is where it starts to get trippy for me... it is further proposed that we are nothing but a holographic projection of 2D information contained at the edges of our own universe. That the 3D world we perceive is really just 2D information being projected. As if we are the inside of a giant black hole. The information on the event horizon, the very outer edges of our universe, is being projected back into nothingness in a holographic version. That is what we perceive -- a projection into nothingness.

That's some pretty badass physics IMO."

---

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
I don't really have the wherewithall to say thats wrong. However I think that the notion of reality having a creation is more casually flawed then it simply existing to infinity in all of its dimensions. The BigBang in my mind corresponds to "macro" reality or the bigger stuff on top of the "micro" or base on which it is dependent, and that if god exists it would most likely be as a conscious interconnected property from the base up which trancends casualty and with that all the other manifestations of it (spacetime and whatever dimensions may exist).

I'm not sure what to think of god as a singularity, from the information I've come across dimensions themselves could be projections similar to a dream from a central point, so all that would be needed was for the source to exist in some way. However thats coming from a perspective dependent on the various dimensions of reality.

---

yeah thats something this theory of god as a singularity does not take into account because if there is other dimensions existing along side the singularity then maybe the singularity does not contain everything but maybe the universe is some what conscious. its physical mechanism being the being the sub-atomic (and smaller) pieces making up a whole like the way a group of neurons come together to to form a brain or maybe this is all bullshit i have a feeling that i will never know...

Quote:

---

giza said:
Here's a few thoughts I've had on this thing since I read your OP..

Imagine having a creation in which you started but you haven't processed the information you just allow it to create itself over and over in a continuous stream without actually having part in the creation

You write the existence program and allow it to create itself which is a never ending process because where there is empty space there is potential for more existence.

Imagine something being created in a matter of seconds but takes centuries of listening for it to be completely explained.

---

Quote:

---

The Chronic said:
this thread is cool

---