hoola

I thought Wheeler's comment was common knowledge....I have no direct citation, and pardon me if I am incorrect, but I have seen lectures concerning Wheeler's legacy, and that statement was listed as one of them.  I will find a lecture and list it later. My overall statements are relevant to the  thread title of "something from nothing"  , supposing that the void  (the nothing) spit out that bit (the something).

 Wheeler's "it from bit" supposition leads to a "bit from void"  supposition. 

quantum mechanics, as a system,  does not exist (yet) within the confines of the pertinent time frame as described, as no systems of any form, quantum or classical, have had time to mature to expression. Therefore, formulae, and their underlying logic structures, QM included, are irrelevant to the conversation. 

what I am saying is not meant to be metaphysics, only that all the pertinent formulae you speak of are a result of a long evolution from the basic default void information, and as such are rather "johnny come lately" and are quite post the period that I am concerned with examining. The conjecture of  math not being eternal, or somehow a contrivance building upon itself, and how this might have had a beginning impetus, is what I am referring to in relation to the original thread question.   If everything is mathematics, then how did math come about...seems a rather obvious question having nothing to do with metaphysics. To presume that math is eternal is metaphysics.

which to me is a rather incorrect way to look at it . How could anything, especially such complex concepts as energy, and it rather distinct categories, exist at an early stage when only an ephemeral suggestion of a numerical device exists within the void, which is the only member of a set that, at that early stage of developement, contains no digits, in effect, the concept of math is only hinted at?

I get around the something from nothing paradox, by postulating that there  could never be a "nothing".  Before the big bang and any lead-up to it, a void must have been present. However, this void contained a default bit of information, namely that the was "one void", thus giving this void it's fundamental structure of the "one", as an early  identifier,  giving us a math based reality versus one built upon some other  self organizing principle.

what if two black holes should collide directly, and not merge by orbiting each other, but directly merge? If this were possible to occur, what would a signal to LIGO look like, and would the  energy of a direct merger be equivalent to a normal rotational merger energy release? Thanks.

if a spacecraft crew could safely orbit a black  hole closely, and attain relativistic speeds approaching 20% the speed of light, what would they see when looking around the interior of the cabin as far as  visual distortions and color variations?  

I have  read that a spinning black hole has a central bulge and is not perfectly spherical. This is the shrinkage I am talking about, in a physical sense, as it spins down due to frame dragging or other effects and becomes more spherical. I am not referring to mass loss, and as a thought experiment, keep the mass constant and consider the matter as a change in shape. Does the hole approach the perfect spherical  shape  in units of multiples of plank units, with no steps between, exhibiting quantum behavior  and if so,  would that  be classically measurable ? Thanks for the responses.

does a black hole of slowing rotation with a shrinking event horizon equatorial diameter, reduce that diameter in discrete steps of multiples of plank units, or in a smoother curve of a classical object in plank unit steps?

I don't see what "honesty" has much to do with the topic.  I am just stating ideas, not claiming them to be true, for a discussion of the specifics of them..

that is a meaningless statement....and not even wrong when addressing the topic.

I realize that what i am saying is ridiculous, but until, and if ever, someone comes up with a better set of ideas about  the "Why Anything" question,  and "Why did things turn out like what we see" this is my "Placeholder" pet idea. YOU come up with something that is better  and doesn't need an omnipotent god to set things going, and I would be quite thankful...

I don't drink, thank you. A theory of everything must include everything....including religions. May I further amuse you with the prospect that everything imaginable and real was coded mathematically prior to the big bang and that places a limit on human free will in the present day.   If any stray thought, feeling or emotion (or imagined god) thought up by a  sentient being, let along matter and energies to play around with, is not coded within the structure of math, you can't have it physically or even imagine it.....so you can only think or feel what was in the  "big bang library, fiction section" . Although that limits the will, so to speak, the upper bound is only restricted by a near infinite numerical possibility set... so you and trillions of others could each imagine a unique thing millions of times per day for the lifespan of the universe and not make a dent in the available library contents. 

the junk dna of the universe...a necessary placeholder situated arithmetically between the logical algorithms that pertain to the real physical meanings that code for space, matter, energy

IF the universe is composed from mathematics, then all things considerable within it are too, including gods and other theoretical things along with real matter and energy. The difference between the theoretical and real, is that the real things are supported by the underlying logic that supports this mathematical universe, and the theoretical is not held down by such constraints, therefore, fluid, formless and immaterial.  This realm I think is the basis of what we call "free will", that is, the actual machinery of imagination. The problem of  religion is that  ideas derived from the illogical  algorithmic  component of math are taken as real things, by taking seriously imaginary beings that will solve tough problems that cannot be solved otherwise (as of yet) .To further amplify the problem is the tendency to read into the real world situations and things being affected by these imaginary playmates. To a degree this is the "experimenter affects the experiment" paradox and a self fulfilling (and compounding for the fundamentalist) illusion that the mind willingly accepts to attempt to settle an internal argument pertaining to it's immediate environment. 

that might be of interest to someone of our time,  but that form of numerical analysis would have long been sorted out and become of academic interest only to historians..What is predictable is the destabilization of their solar system, and a presumed logical desire to halt that process. Your thinking seems guided by the current rage of video game addiction, which is what you are describing that they are  doing with simulations of fake universes. 

 I ask the question in a theoretical sense, which gives some intuition as to what large scale project an advanced civilization might be doing with their time as they persist for billions of years.....a temporary mirror solution of the buck rogers level is  not what one would hope  of the truly advanced.  Could an artificial  fission based companion star  be theoretically possible to construct? It does seem that if it can, the excess  energy could be "dumped" outside of the solar system....perhaps by a particle or laser beam directed into a distant black hole  or empty space. Also, if it is possible to build one, would that give some way for us to detect another civilization who had built one for the stated purpose? I presume that the analysis of a distant artificial fusion star would be distinctive

placing mirrors in space is not what I am referring to, that is a temporary patch, and won't prevent the eventual swelling of the sun and the destruction of earth...can't some theoretical process be available to "recycle" the stellar interior? If the heavier components can be removed to a remote location, say to an orbiting fission based "artificial star" that directs surplus energy to a narrow beam of high energy photons exiting the solar system, while the hydrogen is ferried back to the sun?

I have read that we already know that movement is registered within the brain sometime before the act is followed through.  IF... a form of entanglement is arranged between the brains of the two individuals prior to performing the sword cutting the BB trick, specifically within that realm of shared awareness of the two, and the two individual maintain focus of a common perception of intent of a predetermined positive outcome, during the leadup and duration of that test, then a positive outcome of the test changes from nearly impossible to something less so . Saying that, I am certainly skeptical of the supposed validity of the that form of testing, and don't consider it in any way other than it's entertainment value, unless it could be repeated, just as normal esp testing requires, a preferred method to address the overall question of how the trick might have been done, based upon fundamentals.

so you are saying that the C-12 fusing with He-4, and other steps in the stellar process make the idea unworkable? Is that judged by current technological means, or by some theoretical insurmountable barrier  that a technology in a billion years or so could not figure a way around?  You said that fission doesn't take  place inside our sun, but  I am saying that the fissioning be performed by selected removal of the heavy elements, brought to some suitable place, perhaps outside the sun itself for reduction, and the lighter elements then replaced to the center.The fissioning mechanisms could borrow energy from the normal fusion of the sun to perform that work, thereby making the process more energy neutral...

If the sun, as predicted, will uncomfortably expand in the far future, couldn't a process be developed of sending mechanisms to enter the solar core to fission the heavier elements before that becomes a critical issue, thus maintaining an appropriate ratio and so keeping the unwanted eventuality at bay?

aline, it isn't a conclusion, only a question as to if there was any thinking in relevant circles that certain altered conditions of space itself, if that were possible to happen, were to be causing the dark matter phenomena....that's it, just a question. The ideas that led to this question are that if space has a natural curvature in each microscopic grain, and that curvature is intimately related to the gravitational potential of each grain, that a tendency of the "heaviest grains" to agglomerate might occur. My second post explains it best. 

well strange, I am glad that my topic has arisen a nice song out of the deal, instead or mere irritations. Thanks for the posting

 Bender- the biological end of the research is  Hammeroff, not Penrose.     Penrose wondered where in the brain such functions could occur, and Hammeroff suggested the place, specifically the microtubules in cellular skeletons. The collaboration is now based on research into that area. Yes, I have watched the lectures on utube by both Hammeroff and separately by Penrose. and not summaries.  i presume others in the forum have too, possibly yourself, and if i am inaccurate in some of my statements regarding what they report at lectures, i apologize. Maybe the frequency they calculated was 2 mhz, not 20 mhz...but the basic idea is fairly simple and easily stated......Yes, it is speculative to consider it in ourselves until you consider the evidence of the effect in plants and birds. If you are unaware of that, you might check that out first..phi for all..yes the psychologists may have "moved away" from the idea of the triune brain, but having worked with them and knowing a few of them well, I am quite aware of the deficiencies and trendiness of the field.