I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory. — universeness

Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion?

Do we have a duty towards the Universe? Sounds the same like having a duty towards god — EugeneW

'Duty' was just my choice of word to try to suggest a 'strong responsibility' on your part. It was my statement and I am of the Universe but I cannot claim it as a universal dictate, especially if you disagree with it. How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe. No, I don't project into the god fable with that particular sentence, in my opinion.

If, and once, we have answered all questions, as we would then be omnipotent and omniscient.
This might take a while though. — universeness

Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?

How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe — universeness

Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great.

Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion? — EugeneW

No, he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. At this point, a 'singularity' will inflate again and local time will reset to 0.
A new Epoch.
There are various YouTube vids where he talks about this. There is also one where he debates with William Lane Craig. Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him.

Caring is what makes us want to convert suffering into non-suffering. — universeness

But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness.

Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also? — EugeneW

Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?"

Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him. — universeness

Haha! Sounds like Penrose holds a similar idea. The universe that is left after evaporation of all holes will contain photons only. Maybe some neutrinos if the holes are made of neutrons. These don't have a clock that ticks and no real clock will be present. All neutrinos will annihilate with anti neutrinos again, indirectly creating photons again. But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics?

Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?" — universeness

But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?

If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not?

Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great. — EugeneW

You agree, because you are, as I believe most people are, fundamentally good. This is confirmed by your last sentence. Putin and his forces are killing Ukrainians due to perceived fears (justified or otherwise) he has of 'the West'. It's an old human story, that's been going on since we left the wild,
tribalism. The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us.
Perhaps it's a natural consequence of technological advancement. Perhaps if we survive, we will be one step closer to leaving our planetary nest. I hope we choose to unite.

But suffering is one of the most trascendental emotions we have. To be honest, I think is quite impossible to "not suffer" at all. Philosophical aspects as "happiness", "sadness", "suffering" is upon us and our attitude towards the life.
I even think that most of the days of our lives are full of uncertainty and sadness — javi2541997

I have always held a similar view. I need my suffering, as a comparator, without it or at least, without its threat, I cannot appreciate pleasure. I enjoy food most when I suffer hunger. I love a cold pint of beer much much more when I am very very thirsty etc. Any story of heaven has no meaning to us unless you offer the alternative of hell. I am not suggesting that horrific suffering is desirable and should not be prevented. I am simply saying that we need comparators. That does not mean we will always require extreme examples to initiate major changes in the direction and priorities of our society, as we seem to need now.
Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species.

he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. — universeness

If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity?

The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us. — universeness

I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence?

timeless motion. — EugeneW

What do you mean by timeless motion. Because for me motion indicates a reference to space and distance. And I can’t see how motion from A to B can exist without some form of time which elapses between them. I thought space and time are inseparable - the space time continuum. How does motion occur without some medium be it time or space?

But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics? — EugeneW

I think I was paraphrasing him a little. I think he just posits a new Universe starting within the space of the old. I think he calls it 'Universal bounce.' I can't remember if he mentioned the source as a 'singularity' or not. I would have to watch the particular video again or at least forward it to the relevant point. I have watched most of his youtube stuff, I would recommend them.
I watch a lot of the online cosmologist offerings. I like to hear about all the current opposing ideas.
Currently, I like watching Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Laurence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli, Alan Guth, etc
I have also watched some very good female cosmologists take part in online discussions but they are still 'up and coming' and don't yet have the online presence they should have on sites like youTube.

If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity? — EugeneW

He does say that photons are all that would be left, your right on that but I don't recall what he cited as the source of the 'bounce.' I went to YouTube to find the exact video I was talking about but there are a few so I didn't have enough time to track it down but I will and I will tell it to you in a PM.

Quick question here:

Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence?

Atrocities of the past have caused major positive changes but there are better ways if we become a more enlightened and united species. — universeness

I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible

I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence? — EugeneW

Well, I just mean that it seems to me that if you consider history since we left the wild. We were in small groups that united by conquest/ political marriage between tribal leaders and the daughters of other tribal leaders etc and became bigger tribes. Technology provided us with many useful inventions as well as more efficient ways to kill each other. M.A.D seems like an almost 'natural consequence' of our technological advancement. Our rate of technological advancement is tied to our ability to discover new knowledge, which is tied to emerging/developing intelligence. So the choice of self-destruction or facing the threat of self-destruction seems to 'come with the territory,' when we reach the technological stage we have now reached. I was merely suggesting that the current global threat caused by the relationship between Russia and the West was always inevitable. I hope we all survive it and I hope that the result is that the big world tribes will see the necessity to unite into one human species, currently on one planet.

What do you mean by timeless motion. — Benj96

Well, processes can be reversible and irreversible. All physical processes in the universe are irreversible. Before the big bang, there were no real particles yet to constitute irreversible time. But there was a kind of clock ticking in the form of virtual particles. That clock was (and is) in motion but it has no direction in time. In the case of a pendulum that has a constant period (which can't really exist, while a caesium clock or comparables come close and divert only 1 second in a trillion years or something) you can't tell if it goes forward or backwards. It's that motion I talk about, and that was only present before inflation, to kick inflation in one direction.

Is nothing the same as non-existence? When you say that something came from nothing, are you saying that existence came from non-existence — Watchmaker

Trying to explain what nothing is, is one of the hardest questions there is. The best we can do at present is 'an absence of something.' This is of course a very unsatisfactory answer but its all we have at present. Give us another million years to answer this one. That's not much to ask, considering the almost 14 billion years it took to produce something like you which was able to ask the question.

For me, non-existence has a 'yet' flavour to it. Non-existence to me, still has a 'field of potential.'
But all I can offer in attempting an 'answer' such questions is not an answer at all, but merely my opinion based on my personal interpretation.

I wish most of the people follow your philosophy. But, sadly, the reality is quite complex. Look at Russia-Ukraine war or other issues as Brexit. The governors tend to do the worst options possible — javi2541997

I agree, but at least you and I can shout about it. We can protest and demand better. I am convinced that you and I are actually many many millions, perhaps even billions of people. If we could organise, our voices would drown out the voices of maniacs such as Putin and if that is not enough then our combined actions could destroy all maniacs and stop future maniacal behavior. We have not been able to achieve this unity and level of global organisation yet but we are also not ALL DEAD YET, so maniacs beware, wee f****** see what you bas***** are doing to our chance of a fulfilled and meaningfull life.

But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?
If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not? — EugeneW

Keep faith in us and in yourself. We are alive! and as long as that's true we will keep trying to think of new questions. If we ever know everything, then the question 'what's possible' will no longer be valid as we will know the answer, as you suggest but we don't know everything yet as unanswered questions still exist.

I may not understand the deeper point your are trying to make to me but I will try this:
The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' and they will point out that this is itself a question and then some will conclude that 'there are no more questions,' is an impossible state. But 'there are no more questions' can also be a statement not a question. If it is true 'at that instant of time.' then there is no paradox.

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time.

If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do?

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time. — universeness

So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not?

The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' — universeness

What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?

Can't think of another question... Is that possible?

What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?

Can't think of another question... Is that possible? — EugeneW

I think the last two questions will probably be something like what is nothing? and what is our purpose now?
There would be no more need for memorialising knowledge (no books) if component lifeforms can collectivise and communicate with everyone at will or 'pool all knowledge' whereby access is instant and available to all (these are just my imaginings/musings) I would IMAGINE an omnipotent, omniscient 'collective' would only have the final option to recreate or repeat the process of universe/life creation, there would be no other purpose to them. So if you want to label such as the moment god is created then I can deal with that but as I said before, in a previous post, we could also call such a moment Fred.
It's Friday night, I'm away for beer's and stuff. I will reply to your other two posts tomorrow EugeneW.
Have a good evening!

Hit the pint friend! Back home safely. Seeya later!

Give the context of this discussion, why are some folks too "lazy" to google a well-known science acronym? :roll: ... CMB

Crazy Mall Bitches