The Penrose Bounce.
I watched an exchange between Roger Penrose and Jordan Peterson.
At the start, Jordan Peterson said that he has waited 30 years to talk to a theoretical physicist like Penrose.
I enjoyed watching their exchange regarding human consciousness but I really loved the last 5 mins when Jordan says 'oh you had to mention that now,' just when he thought their exchange had ended.
Penrose talked about his CCC model of the Universe.
From a quick google search this is described as:
The conformal cyclic cosmology ( CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Roger Penrose.
Penrose talked about evidence in the current Universe which he suggests came from the previous manifestation or 'eon.' He calls them 'Hawking points,' and he reckons he and his fellows have found 6 of them. They are 'areas of temperature difference,' about 1/8th the width of our moon's diameter. He said that the Wmap data (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and the planck data (Planck was a space observatory operated by the European Space Agency (ESA) from 2009 to 2013, which mapped the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at microwave and infrared frequencies, with high sensitivity and small angular resolution.) back up his team's findings and that they were published not that long ago and that the current cosmological community has yet to respond.
if the bounce is true and the big bang happened within the space of a previous Universe then the need for a 'first cause' or god, would either be not needed at all or be so far back in time eons that it has no significance at all to the Universe we exist in. THIS Universe would therefore be a result of the bounce effect and not a creation of god(s).
Penrose further suggests that the final spatial expansion of the previous Universe would contain no mass at all, only energy, probably photonic energy. As photons don't experience time, there would be no difference between 'big' and 'small' and time would be reset to 0. Penrose suggests that these are the conditions within which a new big bang can happen.
So I project this towards, no god is required to CAUSE it. The Universe would be cyclical and if there was a first cause to the cycle then why would this 'first cause,' still exist after it 'sparked' the cycle, if it is not needed for the bounce? and why would this 'first spark,' ever intervene in something as trivial as human fate or human affairs? This first cause could have been a mindless happenstance, not a god with intent.
If CCC has any value then it would be evidence from 'beyond our own Universe.'
I know these area's of temperature difference are physically here in our Universe but according to Penrose each one is the result of the heat death of a large galactic cluster which left only black holes, some black holes merged and then they all evaporated through Hawking radiation, which resulted in these 6 Hawking point remnants showing up in our Universe.
The exchange is:
At the start, Jordan Peterson said that he has waited 30 years to talk to a theoretical physicist like Penrose.
I enjoyed watching their exchange regarding human consciousness but I really loved the last 5 mins when Jordan says 'oh you had to mention that now,' just when he thought their exchange had ended.
Penrose talked about his CCC model of the Universe.
From a quick google search this is described as:
The conformal cyclic cosmology ( CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Roger Penrose.
Penrose talked about evidence in the current Universe which he suggests came from the previous manifestation or 'eon.' He calls them 'Hawking points,' and he reckons he and his fellows have found 6 of them. They are 'areas of temperature difference,' about 1/8th the width of our moon's diameter. He said that the Wmap data (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and the planck data (Planck was a space observatory operated by the European Space Agency (ESA) from 2009 to 2013, which mapped the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at microwave and infrared frequencies, with high sensitivity and small angular resolution.) back up his team's findings and that they were published not that long ago and that the current cosmological community has yet to respond.
if the bounce is true and the big bang happened within the space of a previous Universe then the need for a 'first cause' or god, would either be not needed at all or be so far back in time eons that it has no significance at all to the Universe we exist in. THIS Universe would therefore be a result of the bounce effect and not a creation of god(s).
Penrose further suggests that the final spatial expansion of the previous Universe would contain no mass at all, only energy, probably photonic energy. As photons don't experience time, there would be no difference between 'big' and 'small' and time would be reset to 0. Penrose suggests that these are the conditions within which a new big bang can happen.
So I project this towards, no god is required to CAUSE it. The Universe would be cyclical and if there was a first cause to the cycle then why would this 'first cause,' still exist after it 'sparked' the cycle, if it is not needed for the bounce? and why would this 'first spark,' ever intervene in something as trivial as human fate or human affairs? This first cause could have been a mindless happenstance, not a god with intent.
If CCC has any value then it would be evidence from 'beyond our own Universe.'
I know these area's of temperature difference are physically here in our Universe but according to Penrose each one is the result of the heat death of a large galactic cluster which left only black holes, some black holes merged and then they all evaporated through Hawking radiation, which resulted in these 6 Hawking point remnants showing up in our Universe.
The exchange is:
Comments (77)
The fact that Peterson didnât seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him.
Penroseâs time would have been better spent if Peterson had actually done some research. Some of the questions were silly. Just goes to show how pretentious Peterson can be sometimes by suggesting x or y from outside his field of expertise can possibly back up any idea he has that springs to mind.
At least when he gets to talk to Dawkins it could be interesting. I have felt for a long time that Dawkins goes overboard a little and that Peterson has a pretty damn good point to make with the connection between memes and Jungian archetypes ⊠I hope he stays on topic because it would do Dawkins a lot of good to look more carefully at this.
Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. He is someone who probably wonât be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo!
Iâm glad he is respected by those interested in physics. Too bad he makes such an awful psychologist and philosopher.
How does he explain matrices? I'm curious. If it equals mine.
It doesn't matter what explanation you propose. It never will. Someone will always just move the needle back and say, "But what caused that?" Ironically, this needle also applies to a God. "What caused a God to exist?"
People will also just change the meaning of God. "Science just discovered how God made the universe". Science will never solve the God issue, because God really isn't about science. It is the need for there to be some intelligent design as the first cause, over accepting that a first cause could also lack intelligence entirely.
The only real conclusion you can ascertain is there is at least one first cause in a chain of events. (Proven here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1) But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing.
The point is: Don't get excited and think this will change theist's minds. Theism is about far more than science and logic.
Someone forgot to tell Roger , then.
Note that this is a philosophy forum and itâs no coincidence Penrose is cited here, since physics is often treated as a source of philosophical wisdom. Penrose himself has offered paychological speculation on the the relationship between qm and consciousness, and philosophical opinion on mathematical platonism.
âRoger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute: The emperor of physics defends his controversial theory of mind.â
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-6127/
https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Psychology-Roger-Penrose-Behavioral-Sciences/s?rh=n%3A573358%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3ARoger+Penrose
âIn his 1997 book Shadows of the Mind, Penrose speculated further that free will might result from a dualistic mind influencing the random R process. This was the "interactionist" view of neuroscientist John Eccles and philosopher Karl Popper.â
No. That's exactly the point of gods. They give closure to the infinite regress. Gödel's IT applies to physical laws also. No model, stuff, or laws can be used to explain their own existence. Gods are eternal intelligences which don't need further explanation. The relation between gods and what they created is a different one than between gods and gods that created them.
:lol: But I must admit that in my head I kept seeing little square tiles and tesselation type patterns.
But I could feel JP's discomfort when RP kept saying 'well no, it's not the same thing,' to most of JP's attempts to follow him. There were also many moments when RP seemed to struggle to understand points JP was trying to make regarding his attempt to connect musical composition with the tiling problem or how it might relate to 'paradoxical forms' or his comments about trying to see 'something that's not random,' 'a uniting principle,' which connects Penrose's thought processes etc. I think RP responded with something like 'I don't know, your question is too hard to answer.'
I would need to watch the exchange a good few more times to gain a better understanding of all that passed between them.
Quoting I like sushi
I absolutely agree! But I am also a big fan of Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins. I think people with fierce intellects in opposite camps offer value to all listeners.
Quoting I like sushi
No but it sounds like I should read it.
But at least He is regressed to an infinite distance. :razz:
Seriously, the problem with bounce cosmologies and eternally branching cosmologies is the conviction that the "first cause" is going to be a material/effective form of cause. As you say...
Quoting Philosophim
The cosmic riddle deserves a more careful examination of how we conceive of "first causes", because that is a subject already so mired in centuries of Christian faux-Aristotelean theology.
A modern physicalist angle on "first cause" would be something more like like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation where you apply the path integral to a sum over the history of all possible spacetimes. So the starting point becomes the space of all possible dimensional arrangements - an unbounded Apeiron or Ungrund - and then just one such arrangement will prove to have what it takes to beat out all the others in the Darwinian race to exist.
So a scientific answer to why this cosmos and no other would be along the lines of - well, this is why a flat 3D metric won over all the other candidates: it was the only self-stable solution in having the same number of spin degrees of freedom as translation degrees of freedom. It was the only properly rational option. All other dimensionalities failed the test.
There are in fact quite a few ways in which 3D is the special case that any selection for the raw ability to stably exist would have to stumble upon.
So the burden of explanation is moved to quite a different conception of causality. We don't need a concrete event that pops something out of nothing. We instead need a Darwinian competition across all contenders for the ability to stably exist.
This is the rather Platonic ontic structural realist approach. Everything was possible because there was nothing to limit that. But then pretty quickly the field narrowed to what mathematically works as a structure that could develop into a persistent cosmos - a Big Bang dissipative structure constructing its own heat sink of a de Sitter quantum vacuum.
The details are not so important here. It is simply the willingness to rethink the very Christian concept of the first cause as a Newtonian mechanical push delivered by a divine intelligence.
Of course, theists will be just as happy to grab the idea that God the Creator was the supreme mathematician who set up the whole "Darwinian path integral competition" - the sum over all possible dimensional configurations.
But as you say, that's sociology and not science.
I don't think Penrose agrees with you here. He suggests that there can be an energy concentration that causes a new big bang. He suggests that entropy will effectively stop when there is no mass left in the Universe and this totality of (probably photonic) energy is the singularity which becomes the next big bang. At least that's my probably inaccurate interpretation of what he has suggested.
Quoting Haglund
I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this.
Quoting Haglund
A mindless spark with no intent or intelligence whatsoever is my favourite suspect for a 'first cause.'
But a big bang doesn't need concentrations of photonic energy. It needs concentrations of inflationary energy.
Quoting universeness
Those come in at the cause of the unintelligent spark. What brought virtual particles into existence?
Yep, infinite regress, first cause required is the old chestnut but you offer a perfectly acceptable answer imo later on with:
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
I don't feel a burden to 'change theists' minds.' I simply enjoy the debate. If I change the mind of any theist in the process then all the better. Theism is far LESS than science and logic and of much less value, in my opinion.
How does he explain phase space?
That's an opinion indeed. But theism is far MORE in giving meaning and reason for existence and life. What's the meaning or reason of life according to science? Of course the meaning of life is life itself and life life, which I do, but somehow it lives better if our lives are a reflection of unexplicable heavenly life than that science declares us to be material processes replicating genes and memes (which we are!).
:lol: In fact so far regressed that HE (I prefer it) seems to me like a tiny mindless spark with no intent. I am happy to label this first cause, this mindless spark with no self-awareness, no intelligence no intent and no current existence of any kind......god.
I have answered you in the thread 'Question regarding panpsychism,' where you responded to me with a similar comment.
I don't think Penrose is an advocate of 'inflation,' have a look at:
https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy/
Quoting Haglund
Why can't we just call the unintelligent spark, god?
Because it's not intelligent. It needs intelligence, call it intelligent design, to create the spark. The spark can't explain itself. I think there are zillions of these sparks, each with a tĂ·0, each ending causing a new spark. Like Penrose. But he puts the new spark inside the current space, in the future. I think it lays behind us, back at the origin.
Sounds like you are suggesting zillions of intelligent sparks. I think you are a panpsychist not a theist.
I don't think Penrose would use the term 'believe,' in this context. He thinks inflation is an incorrect part of the origin theory.
Quoting Haglund
But it must have happened if he is correct about the 6 'Hawking points,' unless they can be successfully accounted for by other means.
It can be explained by the imprint of a previous ending of a previous universe. Imagine that our universe ends in a couple of black holes. That distribution could backfire to the central singularity (gravity can radiate through the whole of 4D space, contrary to the three basic forces which are confined to 3D).
Gods do not give closure. Whom created Gods?
I see you have a good grasp of Penrose, but nothing at all of reading between the lines.
Just out of interest, what do you think Joshs has missed?
I wasn't responding to Joshs. I was reacting to I like sushi.
That's the whole point of the closure. Eternal intelligence need not be created. Only the non-intelligent stuff of the universe.
Once the creator gets the ball rolling - the first spark - the process is self-sustaining or self-rejuvenating (Phoenix). In a sense then, God didn't create this universe, directly that is. A question on where, in the chain of causation, does responsibility terminate, arises.
Don't you involve god(s) in your question? What difference does it make if you push creation back to an infinitely far away past?
So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness? Seems legit. :chin:
Something like that. They needed to create the right stuff. Particles and space to interact in. Can this stuff, evolving into intelligent life across the universe, create itself? Doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply here to the laws of physics, rendering it impossible to explain the laws by making use of the laws?
So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness in order to create ⊠some kind of half-arsed intelligence that exists to entropify. Youâre really selling this one.
Quoting Haglund
We can âexplainâ any law by appeal to the fact it survives the test of existing. There must be something about it that works, in the largest sense.
That something is usually a symmetry or invariance. Which makes sense. An invariance is something you just canât seem to get rid of no matter how much you twist and turn.
So if you presume anything might be the case, you also know from the patterns of symmetry that not everything can in fact be the case.
This is not using a law to explain a law. It is reasoning about how a âlawâ - or unavoidable regularity - could even come to be.
:lol:
Yeah, something like that. But how else could they have done it? The evolution of life can get along only if the thermodynamics is not in equilibrium. They were very smart in designing the right particles or mechanism to let the right ones appear.
Quoting apokrisis
That doesn't explain the very existence of particles, spacetime, or the invariances in them. That merely describes, which is not an explanation of them being there.
This is just the same as what Penrose is claiming. If you agree that the Universe oscillates between linear time frames of existence, then you agree with Penrose. You may disagree on the mechanisms involved but you agree on the results.
But the mechanism is different. I think every inflated universe backfires not within the current 3D universe, but, via a 4th space dimension through which only gravity propagates (all stuff is confined to only three dimensions), back to an origin in 4D, from where a new pair of 3D universes inflates into existence.
The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well!
In what way does SU(3) fail to account for the structure of the strong force? Letâs start you on an easy one.
SU(3) accounts for the strong force. It's the question if S(2)ĂU(1) accounts for an electroweak force. But apart from this, where did the interacting particles that made us invent these symmetries come from?
Yes, I did but only to expose them as 'unlikey sources,' of our Universe.
The difference was explained by @apokrisis as well as me. The god posit gets pushed further and further back in its 'moment of spark.' It becomes less convincing that the god posited by any current religion has traction.
You don't push gods back by placing them in an infinite past. They still have created it.
You not likey likey god? :lol:
In what way did we invent the symmetry? Thatâs like saying we invented circles.
SU(3) wasnât constructed to fit the strong force. The structure of the strong force was found to be explained by the logic of this permutation symmetry.
So again, how does the symmetry fail to account for the structure of the interactions?
Are you wanting to claim that the two structures just happen to look alike rather than that a mathematical argument about a necessary regularity was found to shape an actually observed regularity?
You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end. In my opinion you further demote your gods. It seems to me that god has been moving in the same direction as the Earth-centered Universe or in the direction of the human race since Carl Sagan's great demotions.
The god you describe does not even qualify for omni status and is not even singular. You present these gods are some kind of early failed civilisation that used to exist somewhere you label heaven?
The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts and he had the advantage of having christ and Christian in his name, showing he was a qualified creator of fables.
It could have been U(3). But why is the trace 1? Because we made it. And no color singlet for gluon-antigluon pairs exist. But why they exist in the first place,?
Quoting apokrisis
It doesn't fail to account. But like I said, SU(2)ĂU(1) accounts too but doesn't show what's going on really. And apart from accounting, SU(3) doesn't explain why it's there in the first place.
:lol:
Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be...
Ah! I see what your primal fear is now. You fear there is more than the universe...
Great. So step two. Could your divine creating intelligences have chosen the maths of symmetry to have been different? Could they have arranged things so that there were six or seven Platonic solids rather than five?
If you think a creator is not bound by some general principle of holistic self consistency - the principle that explains the emergence of invariances - then letâs hear how that might work.
Hey! don't be so disrespectful towards a god going to the toilet!
Quoting Haglund
Nope, my main primal fear is that the price of certain single malt whisky might get too high for the contents of my sporran!
Of course they are bound. To copy heaven and life in it, they had to come up with and create particles and space in such a way that if the were let free all god creatures in heaven showed up in the universe. Which means precisely the (macroscopically) 3D space (rotation degrees equalling translation degrees), an extra dimension to let it expand in, and the right kinds of particles to let it all happen. The right coupling strengths for mass and large scale interactions.
For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy!
Typical non-existent god, never around when you need one.
Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around...
Nah! Rather than praying to non-existent dead donkey gods, I will just continue to try to oust the capitalist profit hoarders and insist that prices are reduced or pensions increased.
I hope the next time you hurt yourself you get cured through prayer and you don't get all 'hypocritical' and visit a doctor! :lol:
Oh sorry! Its not good that I laugh at my own attempts at humour. :joke:
Ha! Believe it or not (speaking of which), a small barking female creature pulled my arm last night. "Zzzack!" I gitta use my other arm now. Damned! But it will heal. Don't need no doctor (I can't stand my doctor! She refused to help me when I truly needed her. "Oath of Hippocrates..." $#@$%%$#!!!!!
Prayers won't help. And neither does the doctor.
If itâs possible for something to always exist, like eternal intelligence, then itâs possible that the universe itself has always existed. No beginning and no ending, just a constant changing of forms.
How can something non-intelligent exist without being cretated?
Try the tune below. Professor Brian Cox was the keyboard player!
The same way that something intelligent can exist without being created.
But something intelligent existing eternally has creation power. It can create the universe out of nothing. Stupid dead matter can't create itself, even if eternal. It's too stupid for that so it had to be brought into existence an infinite time ago. Or maybe a few big bangs in the past.
Dead matter was not created, if it was always there. If you believe that something may be created out of nothing, there is nothing left to discuss.
Is this your honest argument? The first cause is a copy of that which already existed? You are surely smart enough to see how that makes no sense and fails to end the infinite regress?
If you canât make a serious case, donât expect to be taken seriously.
I don't take anything seriously. Seriousness is the root of all evil.
There is no infinite regress. The eternal intelligent life in the heaven dont need no first cause. Intelligent life can be eternal without the need for another intelligence to create it. But non-intelligent dead matter needs an intelligence to be created. Thats an essential difference.
Where did I say so?
Yep. You spend all day posting and yet there is an aimless feel about these actions.
I'm tied to my home for a still few weeks. So what better to do... Just wanna get some stuff out of my mind. But indeed, I don't take it seriously. I could explain the whole of my being as some dissipative structure between two regimes of thermodynamic equilibrium (day and night), Friston blankets, Markov blankets, enactment, Gibbs free energy, periodic big bangs, etc. but religion and gods is what I'm in the mood for. Why should I describe life instead of living it? Not that I don't like all that stuff, I mean, it's fun to go cosmic and fantasize about big bangs, inflation, the nature of dark energy, preons, quantum interpretations, you name it. I believe you like that too, it seems. But why wouldn't gods exist? Gives me a good feeling! No science can explain me!
How original.
Thanks! :smile:
Why? The diallelus applies just the same.
You live in Shanghai ? :smile:
I think eternal intelligence and reason don't need another intelligence. Dead , non-intelligent matter on the other hand does need an explanation for existence. It's not intelligent enough to bring itself about.