How many of you believe in a cyclic universe? The theory's of the cyclic universe propose a universe that is constantly being destroyed and reborn in an infinite cycle. After each collapse follows another big bang.
The idea seems very appealing to me.
Not only is it a more beautyfull idea (wich could also incorporate the belief in reïncarnation or afterlives, etc as well (for criticism towards this addition: see 'the end of spiritualism' on this subforum)) than that of the 'singularity', it also makes more sense then the idea of a singularity: it makes much more sense that whenever there is something we cannot properly explain, that it has always been there and has always existed in a constant cycle, then that for no reason it has popped-up out of nowhere end will end in an everlasting emptyness. At least: when you take the fact that we cannot properly explain the universe, but that it is real and follows the laws of physics (even when we have to admit that these very same laws of physics are part of it, since there is no reason to assume that the laws of physics would suddenly end, they might be bend due to changing circumstances, but this imlpies continuïty just as well).

Over on the book bin thread i listed a book called
Stalking the wild pendulum: On the mechanics of conscoiusness by Itzhak Bentov.
He discusses this in the book and also in the video link that i posted, but for some reason i cannot find a link to the full video.
Its a very good read, and its a good video too.
The first 20 or so mins of the video are an interview with the man himself, and then the rest is a women discussing the principles of his work.

But as i say, the cyclic univerese is somethin he discusses in there. He reckons the universe is egg shaped, spewing out creation from the middle like a fountain, and then it kinda gets sucked up at the other end and repeats.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/g/pictur.../03/21/ga_alexgrey03.jpg
The picture in my head looks something like that famous alex grey painting, where you have an infinite series of universes existing simultaneaously.

Is it exactly the same universe, or are things mixed up for a bit of variety? I don't like Nietsche's idea that we are doomed to live our lives infinite times. I would like things to be mixed up a bit.

The so called 'quantum-loop' model implies that each following universe is different as a result of 'chaos'. but there are several 'cyclic-universe' theories.

Its a nice new idea but it depends on some physics that is not well understood. It could turn out to be completely wrong but I think its very interesting. They might be able to test whether or not it or the inflationary model of the universe is more accurate in the near future. They are launching a satellite that will try and detect gravitational waves that are predicted by one of the theories (i forget which one).

The universe does reincarnate in a constant cycle but i have a very hard time believing that the so called big bang actually happened. For me personally the big bang theory goes against my whole understanding of nature and how energy works, the universes and galaxies have always been in existence continually being renewed.

There was no specific moment when the universe came into existence because it has always existed. There is no begin or end of energy and consciousness only a continual rebirth and metamorphosis into something new. In my own personal view energy can never dissipate into nothing only change and evolve. Excellent thread PolyTrip.


Much Peace and Compassion

the big bang doesnt contradict the cyclic view of the universe or other views such as parallel universes and so on.

The big bang is simply saying that in our measurable universe, all matter was condensed into a singularity at a certain point back in time. But this 'story' doesnt necessarily include ALL of existence in a broader sense. If m-theory is correct, for example, then the universe as we know is created by a sort of vibrating membrane, in some kind of 'hyperspace'. There could be several (infinite?) other self-sufficient universe-membranes out there. Mathematical simulations of what would happen if two of these membranes collided showed scenarios that seem like the big bang. Our universe may have been created by colliding membranes. Imagine the scale!! Like mega fantastic bubbles of thought in gods head, which are whole universes, that when interact with each other create more whole universes! And inside all of these universes there are so many embedded universes, all sorts of phenomenon, patterns, life. All a symphony, an orchestra of vibrating membranes.

this stuff is inteeeeeeeense

Just to be clear. The singularity big bang model is outdated. Hawking and Roger Penrose who originally proofed it have taken it back because of quantum mechanics.

There are more refined theories about the big bang the most common is usually known as the 'inflationary model'.

The universe can come from nothing however. There's nothing wrong with that statement. I would imagine people might find the cyclic universe model intuitively pleasing but it might not yet be true. We will see if it begins to beat out the inflationary model. It may in the next 20 years or so.

Yes, given the fact that the real physics behind the existence of our universe goes far above our comprehension of day-to-day events, you must consider every counter-intuïtive proposition as a real possibility. But still, the statement that the universe came forth out of something instead of nothing, makes more sense. It doesn't contradict scenario's that resemble a big bang theory, although the term singularity would then be limited to the timeframe of our universe.
Burnt, as i remember correctly, you said in another thread that you believed that you saw the universe as information. That would completely fit the concept of a universe that, when it's expanded onto a 'cold-death', at a certain point becoming equivalent with infinite density concentrated at a point of amost zero volume...This would a scenario that exactly follows the M-theory scenario as well.

Peter Lynds has put forth a model in which the universe, due to the irreversible second law of thermodynamics, is an eternally recurring oscillation of energy. In his paper, On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End, he essentially explains, if I am understanding his theory correctly, that all energy which exists inside the closed vacuum of the universe is in the eternal act of oscillating (expanding and contracting) from its primordial source, the big bang/big crunch. After the big bang "creation event" the universe eventually condenses to a point where it cannot contract any longer without violating the second law. By this irreversible law, the configuration is forced to reverse itself (instantaneously, as there is no such thing as time) back to the primordial source (as an explosion). The events will be the exact same. The big bang is the big crunch in reciprocal relation. Time, as we conceive of it, doesn't exist. We are all of the same primordial source, and our very existence is merely a representation of this primordial energy obeying its eternal law. There is only one moment which is the eternal universe.

"If the universe were positively spatially curved and destined for a big crunch, this naturally posed the question of what might happen next. There seemed to be two general options: either the universe would contract to a singularity, a point of infinite density and geometric space-time curvature, and everything would cease to be; or alternatively, it might bounce back with a great explosion. This big bounce would be much like, or possibly exactly the same as, the big bang before it. If the latter, and the universe had exactly the same configuration as the previous big bang, not only would the explosion be exactly the same, but so too would the entire evolution of the universe following it." Peter Lynds, 'On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End'

"To those familiar with Albert Einstein’s two theories, Special and General Relativity, the absence of a present moment or now underlying a dynamical physical process will also not come as a great surprise. Einstein has shown us that there is not a universal now in time holding sway throughout the entire universe. Judgments of simultaneity or of a now do not always necessarily agree, but instead are relative: relative to ones state of motion and spatial proximity in relation to gravity. Furthermore, relativity’s mathematical formalisation has seen the introduction of a block universe in which events do not take place as such, as we subjectively seem to perceive them, but are all mapped out together in a four dimensional space-time in which nothing particularly happens at all. Events are just there, mixed together, sharing equal temporal status, having neither happened in the past, nor happening at present, or about to happen in the future (for a more detailed discussion, see for example, Davies, 1995). In addition to this, recall that it is precisely due to there not being a precise static instant or present moment in time underlying a dynamical physical process, that motion, physical continuity and time (relative interval) are indeed possible in the first instance(Lynds, 2003). The message is clear, if somewhat counter-intuitive: a flowing time and progressive present moment are the products of our subjective perceptions and underlying neurobiology, without actual physical foundation in nature.”

"There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time. This in itself is not measurable."-- Albert Einstein.

Peter Lynds, 'Subjective Perception of Time and a Progressive Present Moment: The Neurobiological Key to Unlocking Consciousness'

http://arxiv.org/ftp/phy.../papers/0612/0612053.pdf

Yeah, the DMT-esque vision that sort of resembles the alex grey picture is always one in wich all universes in time are one and eternity is like one moment, as if it's a 4 dimensional hologram where every 'location' all three spatial dimensions and time is contained in every point.

Nevertheless, i wouldn't say time doesn't exist at all. It's more that our day-to-day concept of time is not what time is realy like.
I would say that time is what the most basic particles or building blocks (whatever they are) 'do', what processes they go through.