The Penrose Bounce.

universeness

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:

I like sushi

I have the feeling the Peterson had not even bothered to read anything Penrose had written or done?

The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him.

Penrose’s 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 won’t be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo!

I like sushi

↪universeness

Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible.

Haglund

If the current matter in the universe turn to photons in the future, the energy of the photons dilutes more and more. The universe will not contain any energy anymore. Time still continues but there is nothing left anymore to create a new universe from. If the universe expands along it will end up in a uniform endless void in which even dark energy has ceased to exist. What could be possible though, is that configurations from a previous universe have leaked into ours, imprinting themselves into the initial contribution of matter and like that ending up in the CMBR. I don't see what gods have to do with this. Even if the universe goes back a zillion, or even infinite big bangs, the the question could be, "who brought the sequence into existence? If you can't answer more closely what the mechanisms of the universe are you can off course say that in the future this will be answered. But that's the easy way out. Take string theory. It is believed to give us the basic constitutes of the universe. Strings, branes, Calabi-Yau manifolds, extra dimensions, a string landscape even, M-theory laws, you name it. The question now becomes: from where these strings, branes, CB manifolds, etc. come frim? If they are the fundaments, there ain't something to explain them. Gödel's incompleteness for physical laws. Only gods can give closure.

Joshs

↪I like sushi

Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. He is someone who probably won’t be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo! — I like sushi

I’m glad he is respected by those interested in physics. Too bad he makes such an awful psychologist and philosopher.

Haglund

↪I like sushi

How does he explain matrices? I'm curious. If it equals mine.

I like sushi

↪Joshs

What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist.

Philosophim

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). — universeness

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.

Joshs

↪I like sushi

↪Joshs What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist. — I like sushi

Someone forgot to tell Roger , then.
Note that this is a philosophy forum and it’s 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.

“Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute: The emperor of physics defends his controversial theory of mind.”

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

“In 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.”

Haglund

Ironically, this needle also applies to a God. "What caused a God to exist?" — Philosophim

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.

universeness

The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him — I like sushi

: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.

Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. — 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.

Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible — I like sushi

No but it sounds like I should read it.

apokrisis

Science will never solve the God issue, because God really isn't about science. — Philosophim

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...

But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing. — 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 like sushi

↪Joshs

something he wrote 25 yrs ago for popular science books? Be serious!

universeness

If the current matter in the universe turn to photons in the future, the energy of the photons dilutes more and more. The universe will not contain any energy anymore. Time still continues but there is nothing left anymore to create a new universe from. — Haglund

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.

I don't see what gods have to do with this. — Haglund

I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this.

If they are the fundaments, there ain't something to explain them — Haglund

A mindless spark with no intent or intelligence whatsoever is my favourite suspect for a 'first cause.'

I like sushi

↪Haglund

Sorry, brain fart! I meant phase space.

Haglund

I don't think Penrose agrees with you here. He suggests that there can be an energy concentration that causes a new big bang — universeness

But a big bang doesn't need concentrations of photonic energy. It needs concentrations of inflationary energy.

I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this. — universeness

Those come in at the cause of the unintelligent spark. What brought virtual particles into existence?

universeness

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? — Philosophim

Yep, infinite regress, first cause required is the old chestnut but you offer a perfectly acceptable answer imo later on with:

But, due to the nature of a first cause, it could be a simple particle appearing. — Philosophim

The point is: Don't get excited and think this will change theist's minds. Theism is about far more than science and logic — 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.

Haglund

↪I like sushi

How does he explain phase space?

Haglund

Theism is far LESS than science and logic and of much less value, in my opinion. — universeness

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!).

universeness

But at least He is regressed to an infinite distance. — apokrisis

: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.

universeness

But theism is far MORE in giving meaning and reason for existence and life. — Haglund

I have answered you in the thread 'Question regarding panpsychism,' where you responded to me with a similar comment.

universeness

But a big bang doesn't need concentrations of photonic energy. It needs concentrations of inflationary energy. — Haglund

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/

Those come in at the cause of the unintelligent spark. What brought virtual particles into existence? — Haglund

Why can't we just call the unintelligent spark, god?

Haglund

No he doesn't believe in inflation. Which leaves the question, how do virtual particles come into real existence. He claims that the circles are remnants of previous black holes. In his view space is infinite and and a big bang emerges cyclical or periodically in an ever expanding universe. Somewhat similar to eternal inflation. If the current universe has turned photonic, then in that same universe emerges a new big bang. The final stage contains a low entropy, just like an initial state. The problem is how to put the bang in that low entropy future. The energy balance doesn't fit.

Haglund

Why can't we just call the unintelligent spark, god? — universeness

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 t÷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.

universeness

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 — Haglund

Sounds like you are suggesting zillions of intelligent sparks. I think you are a panpsychist not a theist.

universeness

No he doesn't believe in inflation — Haglund

I don't think Penrose would use the term 'believe,' in this context. He thinks inflation is an incorrect part of the origin theory.

The problem is how to put the bang in that low entropy future. The energy balance doesn't fit. — 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.

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. — universeness

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).

Present awareness

↪Haglund

Only gods can give closure. — Haglund

Gods do not give closure. Whom created Gods?

L'éléphant

↪Joshs
What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist. — I like sushi

I see you have a good grasp of Penrose, but nothing at all of reading between the lines.

Tom Storm

nothing at all of reading between the lines. — L'éléphant

Just out of interest, what do you think Joshs has missed?

L'éléphant

Just out of interest, what do you think Joshs has missed? — Tom Storm

I wasn't responding to Joshs. I was reacting to I like sushi.

The Penrose Bounce.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions