Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)

On 03/27/2025 04:46 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Jim Burns wrote :

On 3/26/2025 6:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 3/24/2025 8:45 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/23/2025 10:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>

Perhaps, well, sometimes I think
we (our universe) might be contained within
a black hole residing inside our parent universe.
Two massive black holes might of merged in our parent,
there merger was "fertile",
and created us, perhaps?.
Our universe.
This is just thinking out loud here for fun.
Whatever! ;^)

>

Suppose physics permits, in some universes,
a really advanced technology to bud off
baby universes, with some variation in constants.
Those life.friendly, civilization.friendly universes
would provide the lion's share of universes.
>
That's intended to explain why our universe
is so friendly to us. Pick a random universe.
Since (assuming blablablah) most are friendly,
you've most likely picked a friendly universe.

>

Thanks, Jim.
Some of my thoughts I sometimes have
wrt this "infinite fractal cosmic tree"
revolve around, well,
it was never created simply because it was always there?
There is no chicken and egg problem?
>
Too out there?

>
Not at all.
You are in alignment with
the Steady State hypothesis,
which is approximately:
Everything is the way it is because
it's always been that way.
>
Before the Big Bang was the frontrunner
in the best.theory.sweepstakes,
there was the Steady State.
It wasn't even so long ago that
it was frontrunner.
>
Einstein inserted the term Λgₘₙ into
his General Relativity field equations
  Rₘₙ - ½Rgₘₙ + Λgₘₙ = 8πG/c⁴⋅Tₘₙ
in order for them to have Steady State solutions.
>
Later,
when evidence was found of a hot early universe,
Einstein is said to have called Λgₘₙ
his greatest blunder.
>
So,
although today the evidence points away from
the Steady State universe,
it didn't always point away.
>
>
If I were typing this even a week ago,
I would be reciting some very definite numbers
alleged to describe our universe.
However, I've recently learned that
we've learned that
the universe is expanding unevenly,
so
there's a whole lot of re.thinking going on.
I'm not sure what to tell you.

>
Or, as Ross Finlayson would probably say, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and
Thomas Gold.

>
I might have mentioned Hoyle and Bondi, ..., thanks.
>
In the old days it might have been as "immobile celestial spheres",
as with regards to various stories of origin which of course
speak to profound philosophical matters.
>
If both or Big Bang and Steady State are unfalsifiable,
since it may always be finite or infinite the longest time ago,
then the theory of _gravity_ has that it doesn't even much
exist in the premier theories like Newtonian and Einsteinian
theories, since the pull-gravity (whether attracting masses
or "flexing what must be an inflexible space-time") would
be constantly losing energy and a perpetuum mobile and
violating the principles of conservation of physics.
>
>
So, then some have that there's a sort of fall-gravity,
which is just so much different than a push-gravity
(from the outside of the Universe), or what's called
"Fatio/LeSage", or sometimes these days called "shadow-gravity"
or what I call "fall-gravity", since it's minimal and weakest
for things merely fall together as they occlude each other
from the rest of the outside Universe.
>
So, if Big Bang and Steady State, either and both,
are un-falsifiable, then usual theories of gravity
violate conservation, and furthermore, since quite
a few decades ago, the sky survey's data has thoroughly
and beyond significantly: falsified them.
>
So, yeah, there's "a lot of re-thinking going on".
>
>
Not me, though, I mostly already thunked it.
>
>
>