Is the Universe Evolving?

[Original Poster]

I think it's fascinating a billionth of a second after the Big Bang, we had none of the Physical Laws we have today. These laws emerged by chance through the processes of interaction occurring in those first moments. It makes you think that the universe is not run like clockwork, as previously assumed, but is really based on arbitrary habits the same way as the evolution of an organism or perhaps an ecosystem. This also sets the universe up as a progressive mechanism, capable of continuous transformation and development. Thoughts?

[cmind]

I don't often agree with OD, but in this case I tend to agree with the general notion that the physical laws are evolved. In my mind, I imagine the universe starting out as some kind of chaotic information/energy foam from which the laws of logic and then later the laws of physics somehow 'precipitated out'. This occurred because the local regions of the chaos foam with physical laws were able to perpetuate themselves in further generations of the local computation. Of course, attempting (badly) to describe the process in English gives the false impression that there was a time dimension, but time itself didn't exist until later. Take from that statement what you will. This all made perfect sense to me when I first thought of it on a particularly strong THC trip...

[tommo]

Definitely. But in all likelihood, nothing will be good enough to survive in the end. Except "simple" gravity and basic particles.

[RationalMystic]

I have a pet theory that the universe will always head towards forms of ever increasing information density that strives to fight entropy. What I mean by that is that all particles strive for the most stable existence, the lowest energy level. Bad news is, you can't have a universe full of diatomic hydrogens floating around forever. Indeed that WAS the early universe for quite some time but a prick called gravity came over and disturbed the peace forcing hydrogen to clump together till they ignited into stars which made stuff a lot more complicated. The universe's first solution was to simply make bigger atoms but beyond a threashold, it took way too much energy to form and wasn't even that stable anyway. The ingenious solution was to form molecules between different elements to form configurations that brought stability to all, or at least a decent compromise. 3 elements rose above the rest in the bond polls: Hydrogen, Oxygen and (you guessed it right) Carbon. Together these formed the critical components of organic chemistry that somehow led to this mysterious phenomena we call life But its important to relize that all of this natural beauty and genius was and indeed is part of ongoing struggle against entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in a closed system that is not in a state of thermal equilibrium, but life said "fuck you! I'm not closed and my pubic hair wil keep me in thermal equilibrium, it sure did for your mom last night!" or something to that effect. I think that human consciousness is the next step in this fight against entropy and there are things to suggest that our brain has an unprecedented information density, especially if it turns out that it is an quantumn computor but I think I've done enough ranting for one day.

[elucid]

I believe they now have revised some things about the big bang, the particular part about the explosion. They say it was not an explosion but an expansion of time and space that we call the big bang.

[Wayfaerer]

I believe they now have revised some things about the big bang, the particular part about the explosion. They say it was not an explosion but an expansion of time and space that we call the big bang. Expansion of time... Wtf does that even mean? lol

[RationalMystic]

I believe they now have revised some things about the big bang, the particular part about the explosion. They say it was not an explosion but an expansion of time and space that we call the big bang. That was'nt really a revision. It was always about a rapid expansion. the name 'big bang' originally came from the theory's critics. To answer wayfaerer's question, in general relativity time is considered to be another dimension along with the three spactial dimensions of length, width and depth. Together they form what is known as the "space-time continium". So if space starts expanding, it follows that time would. Time though has always been a troublesome parameter to define, not least because it is so dificult to quantify it in any way that isn't arbitory.

[Wayfaerer]

in general relativity time is considered to be another dimension along with the three spactial dimensions of length, width and depth. Together they form what is known as the "space-time continium". So if space starts expanding, it follows that time would. The problem with that is the concept of "expansion" already entails time in it's definition. Time expanding with respect to what, itself?

[RationalMystic]

lol thats one of the reasons why time is a tricky parameter to define. Another weird charactoristic of time is its dominence over the other dimensions. You can contain an entire universe in the smallest possible division in time but no matter ehat elaborate structure you construct, you cannot contain a division of time. The possible exception to that would be a blackhole, but a blackhole creates such a warp in the space-time continuam that it effectivly punctures a hole through it.L

[Original Poster]

A black hole contains its own independent horizon so it's not subject to the same processes and reactions of the rest of the universe. The observer is not forced to reconcile time relative to what happens within the horizon of a black hole because they could never possibly observe the inside of its horizon without getting sucked in. As far as what happens to an observer that does enter the horizon of a black hole... that's up for debate and impossible to state for certain.

[Wayfaerer]

Black holes are mysterious and cool.