Comment by JulianPGough

4 days ago

I think this cuts through that Gordian knot. "Nothingness" is just an idea in our heads: we have never encountered "nothing". There's no such thing, it's an idea. There is always something; there was always something. And sure enough, in this model, there was always something, some original universe. (Back when it was actually "uni"!) Some unbelievably primitive always-existent universe, made of the original ur-matter, long before the modern periodic table evolved, long before even electrons, protons, and neutrons. All you need is that always-existent universe, time, and change.

How primitive can it be and still reproduce? Because to kick-start an evolutionary process, the only thing that it needs to do is reproduce.

How does a universe reproduce, in this model? VERY VERY SIMPLY. Mass-energy collapses to a point, bounces to form a new universe. All it has to do is collapse. So you have some primitive matter that collapses. It doesn’t have to collapse millions of times and produce millions of offspring (like our universe). Not yet. It just has to do it once. Flip/flop, a collapse and an expansion. A black hole/big bang cycle. And then eventually (and it has infinite time in which for this to happen!), it has to do it twice.

It produces two new universes. There’s two direct collapses that bounce to form new big bangs, new universes, right? And there’s no structure. There’s no complexity. But that’s a direct collapse, forming supermassive black holes. (Which is how, I argue, the supermassive black holes we find today in our universe must still form; evolution conserves successful reproductive strategies, she isn't going to invent a far more complicated way to do it, when a simple way is already available.)

That has to be how the earliest universes reproduced, without complex structures. All they have to do is just be a cloud of totally unstructured ultra-primitive matter, just collapsing. A directly collapsing cloud. No fancy nuclear fusion or stellar masses. And all that more complex stuff – stars, stellar collapse black holes, life, technology, technologically manufactured small black holes – comes later. They are later evolutionary breakthroughs. But they build on that earlier foundation, of direct collapse supermassive black holes.

> It produces two new universes.

Wouldn't that mean each of the two universes have less matter than the one that spawned them?

(I'm not a physicist. Hell, I can't even spell physicist wihiut taking my shoes off. So this could be a very stupid question for all I know.)

>There is always something;...

I am sorry, but I can't help feel like this is a cop out. Much like "Its tortoises all the way down". Or "God created the universe and God always existed".

Making this original universe very simple does not help much, and it is just kicking the can down the road a bit. The fundamental questions still remains.

If the base universe is postulated to have always existed, why not do away with this theory altogether and simply postulate that our universe has always existed? Sure, our universes physics are conveniently balanced, which Occam's Razor abhors and which begs explanation. But this theory doesn't seem to satisfy Occam as it requires more rather than fewer assumptions (a capacity for infinite self-replication, complete with heritable and mutable physics).

If we're going to waive the need for a first mover, why not just waive it?