3 ms·
It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility. It all just started 13.5 billion years ago? We simply don’t know.
by melling 4y ago
It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility.
It all just started 13.5 billion years ago?
We simply don’t know.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago> It’s a little unclear why his theory about the universe being reborn can’t be a possibility. Occam's Razor: what problem with simpler theories does this "possibility" solve?
- m3kw9 4y agoIt satisfies our believe there is nothing else but this universe, but if you think there is more than just our own universe, our universe could have been triggered by something else. It could wobble like that none the less because gravity eventually wins and everything pulls back to the center
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago> It satisfies our belief What do you mean "our belief" ? Yours maybe, but it doesn't satisfy my belief, my belief is different. Or maybe, a whimsical "belief" is not enough, in itself, for theories to aspire to meet. Feelings aren't facts about the nature of the universe.
- rightbyte 4y ago> It satisfies our believe there is nothing else but this universe Belief? Isn't the universe everything, by definition?
- jjgreen 4y agoNo issue with considering this possibility, but unless it becomes clear that we can possibly squeeze some truth out of it on a human timescale, not really physics.
- markhahn 4y agoif it's actually "reborn", we can't know, so the question is invalid. Penrose seems to be claiming that there is falsifiable evidence that this "incarnation" is not the only one. that's totally fringe (speculative).