Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe(again I know)

[Elimentals]

In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it’s ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious, he may form some picture of a mechanism for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one, which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility and meaning of such comparison.

Yes I got it, my picture of "the watch innards" sucks and will never be a true reflection, no need to post it again
It doesn't say I should stop drawing my own, just that it will never be right.

PS Geriatrix already answered it.

 

[Arthur]

When it comes down to brass tacks, the "universes inside black holes" notion is as ridiculous as the endless series of tortoises or elephants or whatever that some paleos came up with.

Makes nice blog blubber and fills the internet with more nonsense.

 

[Devill]

Yes I got it, my picture of "the watch innards" sucks and will never be a true reflection, no need to post it again
It doesn't say I should stop drawing my own, just that it will never be right.

PS Geriatrix already answered it.

Sorry was a tad late, pressed reply, got side tracked, then only later did I press submit...

 

[copacetic]

When it comes down to brass tacks, the "universes inside black holes" notion is as ridiculous as the endless series of tortoises or elephants or whatever that some paleos came up with.

Makes nice blog blubber and fills the internet with more nonsense.

Is it any more or less ridiculous than most of the religious and god concepts we have though?

 

[Elimentals]

Is it any more or less ridiculous than most of the religious and god concepts we have though?

I,m sorry but there is a huge difference.

The multiverse and infinite black hole hypothesis are based on mathematical formulas the other is based on trail over the ages by witchdoctors on what works for controlling people.

And seeing that this is the science section I vote we stick to the math based ones.

 

[copacetic]

I,m sorry but there is a huge difference.

The multiverse and infinite black hole hypothesis are based on mathematical formulas the other is based on trail over the ages by witchdoctors on what works for controlling people.

And seeing that this is the science section I vote we stick to the math based ones.

That's why I said any more or less, hoping to invite this very train of thought, which I personally agree with.

 

[Techne]

Is it any more or less ridiculous than most of the religious and god concepts we have though?

I don't know how you can even begin to compare the concepts.

 

[copacetic]

I don't know how you can even begin to compare the concepts.

Well, Arthur is pretty clear on his religious convictions, and in that context, I find it strange that there can be such scoffing at what cosmology might suggest, yet such certainly when it comes to the existence of his Christian god, which in my mind is based on a far less stable underpinning.

 

[KaladinStormblessed]

Well, Arthur is pretty clear on his religious convictions, and in that context, I find it strange that there can be such scoffing at what cosmology might suggest, yet such certainly when it comes to the existence of his Christian god, which in my mind is based on a far less stable underpinning.

+9000

 

[Geriatrix]

Please for the love of smores, keep your religious opinions out of the science section unless they some how have scientific based evidence to add. Or humor.

 

[Techne]

Please for the love of smores, keep your religious opinions out of the science section unless they some how have scientific based evidence to add. Or humor.

Do you mind if I reply to old copa here, the chap wants a quick word on "stable underpinnings" of "convictions" ...

Well, Arthur is pretty clear on his religious convictions, and in that context, I find it strange that there can be such scoffing at what cosmology might suggest, yet such certainly when it comes to the existence of his Christian god, which in my mind is based on a far less stable underpinning.

Well, it may very well be so in your mind and that is your opinion. I have previously suggested you read up (for yourself) more about classical theism (e.g. Aquinas and the Scholastics etc.), I can only suggest it again. I would agree with Arthur that classical theism is on much more stable footing and makes more sense than the hypothesis in the OP (no I am not implying that these two views are incompatible, I see no reason why). Try Feser's "The Last Superstition" for a start if you want to get serious about talking about God.

 

[Nick333]

I love how the obvious theists attack this theory from a semantic angle. "Well, of course this theory is ridiculous because the word universe denotes all that there is". /self-satisfied dusting of hands.

The word universe means whatever we want it to mean. It could mean that which we once thought to be everything that exists.

 

[KaladinStormblessed]

I can see this turning into a theists rage thread. Go make an atheists vs theists thread.

I think this is an awesome idea actually, that we may be contained within a black hole.

I always wondered if we were perhaps part of a superverse in some way. I just always pictured us as like a cell in a body. So small that we couldn't be aware of the immense structure we belong to.

 

[Nick333]

Well, it may very well be so in your mind and that is your opinion. I have previously suggested you read up (for yourself) more about classical theism (e.g. Aquinas and the Scholastics etc.), I can only suggest it again. I would agree with Arthur that classical theism is on much more stable footing and makes more sense than the hypothesis in the OP (no I am not implying that these two views are incompatible, I see no reason why). Try Feser's "The Last Superstition" for a start if you want to get serious about talking about God.

Nonsense, Aquinas posited a causeless first cause. It's hardly great thinking. Whether or not it's a more plausible hypothesis than the one in the OP is purely subjective. Since we know nothing of causeless first causes and at least something about the conservation of energy my subjective view is that the OP's hypothesis is more plausible.

 

[WatchMan]

Every universe exists within a black hole, with each contracting universe feeding the other expanding universes - the length of time each universe exists depends on the amount of energy contained there-within. In this state of flux, energy is conserved through constant transference. Each universe is folded in on itself as well as every other universe with the black holes acting as 'thin skins'.

 

[Techne]

By pointing out that "comsos" is the probably the more correct term does not take away anything from the hypothesis. It is interesting. It poses no problem for theism so the whole atheism vs theism thing is unnecessary and there is no need to generalize.

Nonsense, Aquinas posited a causeless first cause. It's hardly great thinking. Whether or not it's a more plausible hypothesis than the one in the OP is purely subjective. Since we know nothing of causeless first causes and at least something about the conservation of energy my subjective view is that the OP's hypothesis is more plausible.

Don't confuse a hypothesis with a logical deductive argument. Please read what Aquinas and others actually wrote instead of knocking down straw men. As mentioned, try Feser's "The Last Superstition" for a start.

 

[Swa]

I,m sorry but there is a huge difference.

The multiverse and infinite black hole hypothesis are based on mathematical formulas the other is based on trail over the ages by witchdoctors on what works for controlling people.

And seeing that this is the science section I vote we stick to the math based ones.

No it's not. And comparing the two one is based on observation and the other on wishful thinking by "scientists." Speaking of observation once again we see the non-religious have nothing better to do than think about religion and God.

Nonsense, Aquinas posited a causeless first cause. It's hardly great thinking. Whether or not it's a more plausible hypothesis than the one in the OP is purely subjective. Since we know nothing of causeless first causes and at least something about the conservation of energy my subjective view is that the OP's hypothesis is more plausible.

Two different concepts. From a universe where everything has a cause back towards a causeless cause is reduced complexity. Positing a universe as a black hole (which we have in our own) inside another universe is just increasing the complexity. At some point the complexity must have started so that's less likely.

 

[Geriatrix]

No it's not. And comparing the two one is based on observation and the other on wishful thinking by "scientists." Speaking of observation once again we see the non-religious have nothing better to do than think about religion and God.

While I do enjoy the odd philosophical discussion, I do wish posters would just keep their religious opinions(or lack thereof) to themselves in this section. This whole theism VS atheism debate is painfully dull.

Two different concepts. From a universe where everything has a cause back towards a causeless cause is reduced complexity. Positing a universe as a black hole (which we have in our own) inside another universe is just increasing the complexity. At some point the complexity must have started so that's less likely.

Well not necessarily. Nature does indeed appear to be very fractal.

 

[Nick333]

Well not necessarily. Nature does indeed appear to be very fractal.

And also the hypothesis doesn't suggest the creation of new energy and matter as far I can tell. It seems like a constant downward trickle of both.

 

[KaladinStormblessed]

While I do enjoy the odd philosophical discussion, I do wish posters would just keep their religious opinions(or lack thereof) to themselves in this section. This whole theism VS atheism debate is painfully dull

+1 Thread is being derailed.

I think a theist vs atheist thread would be interesting. As long as it doesn't devolve into: hurr I'm an atheist and you have make believe friends. And: hurr I'm a theist and circular logic ftw.