I observed people don't put that kind of qoustions anymore, and when they do, they don't meant it. It is just the protocol.
Anyway I send this message to you because it is a matter of literature.
Short story (I don't have a long one): I started writing a book. But after I read one of your earlier posts, (when you announced that you are going to make predictions) I released that a part of the introduction was (might be) a description of the Big Bang. So I rewrite that part (because it was for a fantasy novel) and translated it.
My question actually is: Can you please tell me if it is a description of the Big Bang.
I don't know what else to write.
Good for you you feel better
And... I like very much your work.
P.S.: when I wrote the introduction it really was flowing from somewhere...
But there can’t be dark without light. That’s what light is for.
Yet to make dark from light you need something. Something which if it is not specific it is nothing.
So all starts specific
We have white plant and black rock. Water with no colour (for the moment being) and the sky is everywhere. From the sky the dirt is made, and it is dirty. Because the dirt was dirty the greenery was green and that let the rock be itself. The sky scared himself blue and the water stil colourless remained.
So the light and the dark have to understand than? No way! The light took part of the sky for the sky was itself could not be totaly conquered. But that meant the dark to follow the light and slowly take control.
But the were the sons of light and dark and they moved colours which made action which declared time!
So, in time, the greenery create one the water another the sky more. But the rock still none.
Really digging the space/astronomy/cosmology angle of your Newsletter. I had not considered our Universe could be the descendent of a long line of other universes. I like the idea of having a Twin universe where time runs backwards.
Oh, thanks Michael. I am delighted it is resonating with you. Yes, the idea that the universe evolved is not at all well known. I feel that it's a revolution that failed to happen at the time for reasons that are nothing to do with how good the theory is. As the great Richard Hamming said (in You And Your Research), “…many a good idea has had to be rediscovered because it was not well presented the first time, years before!”
Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I think the longterm future of the universe is less knowable than we think. Once consciousness gets involved, and matter becomes self-aware, and self-altering, a simple determinist physics based on the cause-effect chain of the movement of simple particles doesn't apply so firmly. For a more mundane and small scale example, you could look at a rock on a beach before life arose on earth, and predict its future pretty simply. But once life arises and gets complicated, that rock could end up anywhere, doing anything. It might be hollowed out, filled with someone's grandfather's ashes, and dropped into a lake. It could be carved and used as a capstone in a church doorway. It could be sent to another continent on a barge, or crushed to make colourful gravel for fishtanks. As Stuart Kauffman would put it, the adjacent possible gets bigger and bigger as life (and technology) evolves.
Or is it all just a simulation? Nice explanation. My Mom recently died of Cancer, she wanted her ashes to be spread in a local river. Pro gamer tip, the best video game about this is currently Stellaris. You'd be surprised how you see the galaxy differently after playing this game.
She was such an easy going soul, even her passing was relatively light-hearted. She was "grateful to go to the stars". Thanks though, it's relatively recent so helpful for me to talk about.
Hey Julian!
How was your day? Have you done anything nice?
I observed people don't put that kind of qoustions anymore, and when they do, they don't meant it. It is just the protocol.
Anyway I send this message to you because it is a matter of literature.
Short story (I don't have a long one): I started writing a book. But after I read one of your earlier posts, (when you announced that you are going to make predictions) I released that a part of the introduction was (might be) a description of the Big Bang. So I rewrite that part (because it was for a fantasy novel) and translated it.
My question actually is: Can you please tell me if it is a description of the Big Bang.
I don't know what else to write.
Good for you you feel better
And... I like very much your work.
P.S.: when I wrote the introduction it really was flowing from somewhere...
This is the text:
In the beginning it was, of course, dark.
But there can’t be dark without light. That’s what light is for.
Yet to make dark from light you need something. Something which if it is not specific it is nothing.
So all starts specific
We have white plant and black rock. Water with no colour (for the moment being) and the sky is everywhere. From the sky the dirt is made, and it is dirty. Because the dirt was dirty the greenery was green and that let the rock be itself. The sky scared himself blue and the water stil colourless remained.
So the light and the dark have to understand than? No way! The light took part of the sky for the sky was itself could not be totaly conquered. But that meant the dark to follow the light and slowly take control.
But the were the sons of light and dark and they moved colours which made action which declared time!
So, in time, the greenery create one the water another the sky more. But the rock still none.
Really digging the space/astronomy/cosmology angle of your Newsletter. I had not considered our Universe could be the descendent of a long line of other universes. I like the idea of having a Twin universe where time runs backwards.
Oh, thanks Michael. I am delighted it is resonating with you. Yes, the idea that the universe evolved is not at all well known. I feel that it's a revolution that failed to happen at the time for reasons that are nothing to do with how good the theory is. As the great Richard Hamming said (in You And Your Research), “…many a good idea has had to be rediscovered because it was not well presented the first time, years before!”
So do you think the Universe will reverse in a "Big Crunch"?
Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I think the longterm future of the universe is less knowable than we think. Once consciousness gets involved, and matter becomes self-aware, and self-altering, a simple determinist physics based on the cause-effect chain of the movement of simple particles doesn't apply so firmly. For a more mundane and small scale example, you could look at a rock on a beach before life arose on earth, and predict its future pretty simply. But once life arises and gets complicated, that rock could end up anywhere, doing anything. It might be hollowed out, filled with someone's grandfather's ashes, and dropped into a lake. It could be carved and used as a capstone in a church doorway. It could be sent to another continent on a barge, or crushed to make colourful gravel for fishtanks. As Stuart Kauffman would put it, the adjacent possible gets bigger and bigger as life (and technology) evolves.
Or is it all just a simulation? Nice explanation. My Mom recently died of Cancer, she wanted her ashes to be spread in a local river. Pro gamer tip, the best video game about this is currently Stellaris. You'd be surprised how you see the galaxy differently after playing this game.
I'm sorry to hear that about your mother. But I love her final wish, a river is a beautiful idea...
She was such an easy going soul, even her passing was relatively light-hearted. She was "grateful to go to the stars". Thanks though, it's relatively recent so helpful for me to talk about.