Humans in the Future Will Abandon the Universe the Same Way Humans in the Past Abandoned God

Comments

1

Whatever the fundamental character of spacetime, and whatever the underlying reason(s) we interpret time in terms of past, present, and future, they are all features of the universe, by definition.

3

This formulation of rejecting "the universe" is, trivially, simply a rejection of science. If there is no "all-like," no common principle, law or structure governing space, time, and matter, then there is no physics.

There is a fairly simple reason that scientists, and physicists specifically, rejected post-structuralist descriptions of science a few decades ago, and continue to resist attempts to deconstruct of physics (though there aren't so many of those around anymore).

Science is a very specific process, the explicit goal of which is to establish univeral truths. There are all sorts of interesting arguments in the philosophy of science, but trying to redefine the creature into nonexistence isn't one of them.

4

Dear Stranger,

Mudede is a great Poetry Reporter. Please keep him great.

6

The article failed in the second paragraph. Even if we generously allow the many dark matter and dark energy observations and theories be described in a manner to be waived off in the source article.

It is *precisely' because we observed and describe the universe in terms of general relativity (i.e. gravity and its curving of space) that we know of dark matter and dark energy. Zwicky discovered it nearly a ventury ago (1933 by observing galaxy clusters against the virial theorem of classic mechanics); do we really still have to have this conversation?

The mysricism that follows is even worse. Religion was make belief and mysticists partook, the universe is observed and scientists partake.

The irony is that it is the 21th century that has shown religion to be (self)delusion akin to what the 20th centuri did with astrology. Astronomer Hubble showed us that "star patterns" are projections against the sky, psychologists blind tested horoscopes as not working; religion psychologists tested intercessory prayers as not working and physicists that 'souls/rebirth' cannot exist (c.f. particle physicist Brian Cox in various shows), cosmologists showed 'god agency' are make belief projections agains a 100 % mechanistic universe.

But I guess mysticists have to live with projecting their imaginary past on our real future

7

"Waved off", "a century ago", "against", obviously..I blame lack of coffee.

8

So are you saying that God is an unreality? A nonentity? What about all of us who know Him personally and accept Him as Creator and Supreme Commander of the Universe/s? Are the millions of us deluded? I believe not. God is what reality is all about. He is almighty and glorious and the supreme intelligence that has set all thinkers going. You will never get to the bottom of God. And yet, this supreme being loves us each one, all products of His boundless creativity. And because He desires our company within His hallowed portals, He has made a way for us to be in perfect communion with Him on a permanent basis. All who come to Him in humility, accepting His omniscience and omnipresence may be considered part of His family. This is an awesome offer. All who take it will eventually discover all the mysteries of science because God made science as He made everything. And only He can make something from nothing. All those who have allowed Him to sit on the throne of their lives and reign through them, have experienced reality. And all Christians will say Amen.

9

Thanks for explaining everything Charles. Ha! I know it was a profit deal!

10

Can someone explain to me why The Stranger put this nonsensical pseudo-scientific garbage on its front page?

11

In the cosmic vein of holy abandonment, what if they made a Clippit movie?

12

I stumbled across your post when googling ["small regions" "eons deviate" rovelli]. My search terms were designed to discover any discussion of both Carlos Rovelli's theory of perspectival arrow of time and Boltzmann's apparently similar theory. And it succeeded(!) by finding your excellent observation: "But Rovelli is only remixing, if we return to the club metaphor, ideas proposed by Boltzmann, who, as I stated, needs to be regarded as one of the greatest minds that ever walked this earth."

While both Rovelli and Boltzmann abandon the notion that there is a universe with a single arrow of time, I don't really see that as quite the same as entirely abandoning the concept of a universe. To use, and perhaps abuse, your club metaphor: I think that both Rovelli and Boltzmann would say that there is only one club, but different groups of dancers interact with different disco balls all rotating in myriad directions.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post!