Could we physically replicate our universe? by Malcolm Macleod

Mr. Macleod,

Lee Smolin's book 'The Life of the Cosmos' advances and explores the notion that a process of cosmic "natural selection" might explain how the universe arrived at its current state. A good and thought-provoking read having at least some tangential link with your ideas. Highly recommended.

Hello Mr Macleod ,

Nice to meet you .

I see the Universe like a complexification by very weak polarisations .

If these polarisations are linked with the frequences of rotating quantum spheres and their informations ,thus the harmony of evolution is an evidence .

The rule and the evolution process always ,all has a rule of complemenatrity .It's evident and is linked by a code of building ,where the polarizations are specifics .The natural selection is different than a complemenatrity ,there the very weak interactions on the line time increase the complexification and diverity .If we take a step of this evolution ,the intelligence imlpies the complementarity and not the natural selection where the hand thus is harmonious and the technology too correlated with our evolutive step .

What I find interesting is the capacity ,this potential of the intelligence like a catalyzer of polarisations ,interactions where many things are possible in the complementarities implying exponentials ,harmonious exponentials.

What I think importaznt is the code inside the main central sphere and the code of building or becoming .

In this logic the biology is fascinating because it's the most complex polarisations where spheres are polarised and in specific frequences of polarity thus to continue to polarise and evolve .

I liked your essay and this universal link ,I think what the computing and the universal dynamic are evidently differents ,we can extrapolate but we rest in our limits .We can simulate to understand our biology ,chemistry ....but like all we have our relativistic limits .

Congratulations

Sincerely

Steve

Hi Malcolm,

Though I can agree that the laws of physics are the product of the evolution of the universe, if to an atheist the universe must have created itself out of nothing, then the grand total of all its creations, including spacetime itself, somehow still must be zero -which in fact is a general conservation law. The laws of nature, then, are the accounting rules according to which this sum remains nil, the creation of the universe like a zero splitting itself into a multitude of positive and negative numbers the sum of which always stays zero, things creating each other and only existing to each other inside their universe.

The universe then isn't evolved "from an initial condition" as there are no conditions before, but creates itself out of nothing: an "initial condition" implies the existence of something preceding the universe, and in fact betrays your belief that it was created as the result of some outside intervention, a religious belief you share with physicists who believe in the Big Bang fairy tale which indeed presuppose the existence of unspecified "initial conditions", a tale which doesn't even offer the beginning of an answer as to its mechanics, to the origin of all energy which supposedly was created at once, to its how or why.

To summarize these conditions under the pompuous sounding term 'singularity' is nothing but admitting that we really don't understand anything at all: that we don't even want to understand it as this would interfere with our beliefs, preferring our own ideas about what's logical above what nature's logic.

A nice change to see yor essay challenging the early universe not to be a part of the latter day Physics. Yes, Physics has been evolved over the past few hundred years but has since been considered as consisting of laws that help us decribe physicsl processes taking place , perhaps eversince came into being.

i do not know if you had the time to look at my essay on this forum. There i present a picture that points out that the early universe closer to the birth, say first billion years was a lot lot different from the universe much later.Physics of today is unlikely to explain the features of that early universe satisfactorily. That is why we have so many mysteries remaining unsolved in cosmology like dark matter/energy, black holes that have hardly shown a good degree of understanding.There is a singularity of birth through Big Bang that is not understood. Singularities of lower nature emerge if one studies the evolution process and think of alternatives to such an evolution process. Both symmetries as welll as deviations from symmetry appear in nature. There is both some steadinessa as well as change in nature as a rule. Ther is logic as well as randomenss a part of the nature. Also, we do not expect Nature to be too complex, as it appears to us. Is not our minds controlling us in seeing complexities when the truth is more closer to simplicity. What to believe and what not to believe continues to overshadow us in our persuit of higher level of knowledge?

i wonder your essay has a good rating inspite of few postings. It goes to show that you have commended good respect through your silence as well as that of other participants. Total silence is golden and it contains the entire knowledge gets reflected through your essay!