Would a perfect world be static?

[Sorn]

Could a perfect world change?
Because that would perhaps mean that later is different. Would it then be perfect for everyone again?
A black hole is a "perfect" sphere. Except that it can get bigger, it remains a perfect sphere. Everything is sucked in to be even bigger and more "perfect"?
Shouldn't absolute perfection include the whole universe?
Can perfection even exist?

 

[Pin]

Could a perfect world change?

Perfect how?

 

[slant]

Depends on how you define perfection, because as a concept it is not a real thing. Perfection really means "exactly how I like it" or "fits these specifications". If you view perfection instead as balance, to strive for that, then it definitely would not be static and in fact is likely exactly as reality currently is.

I think that the ideal of perfection is so intoxicating, but it is a trap. If you were only to experience things exactly as you like it, you would never be able to truly appreciate it. We need contrast for there to be a such thing as perfection and to eliminate imperfection destroys both concepts.

 

[Ren]

Could a perfect world change?
Because that would perhaps mean that later is different. Would it then be perfect for everyone again?
A black hole is a "perfect" sphere. Except that it can get bigger, it remains a perfect sphere. Everything is sucked in to be even bigger and more "perfect"?
Shouldn't absolute perfection include the whole universe?
Can perfection even exist?

It really depends on what you mean by perfection.

But yes, if something is posited as perfect and then changes to something else, that something else must be different from perfect unless there are different 'poles' of perfection.

I think a combinatorial theory of change could facilitate the preservation of perfection if we posit, for example, that perfection requires facts a, b, c... n regardless of how those facts are arranged and rearranged over time.

 

[Sorn]

I think of different experiences and ideas. In religion it is the concept of a heaven.
In the quantum world, it could perhaps be the vacuum from which particles keep coming into our world, although we imagine something perfect under the vacuum.
It is interesting for us humans that a certain disturbance of harmony and symmetry seems more beautiful to us.
The angular momentum of many galaxies has been measured and at the moment it looks as if our universe is rotating. That is naturally very strange, because then you have to ask "in what does it rotate".
In music there is the Pythagorean Comma, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_comma which shows that superimposed intervals show small differences.
For me it turns out that perfection is only possible with imperfection together.
So a heaven needs a hell, and a black hole radiates with time, because from the vacuum particles get into our world.
In music, the tempered tuning has brought all the keys together. Hardly a layman knows this at all and enjoys the music.
Or how do you see this matter?

 

[dragulagu]

Do you mean mathematical perfection? Perfection, to me, would then be the single descriptor which allows the existence of the Universe throughout its whole life. The underlying "law" that would govern how our Universe/World would
evolve into according to our timeline. If we would look at our Universe through its whole timeframe as an outside observer, perfection would then be this evolution of the Universe.
Static is not a "real" option though, without any dynamic changes we would not exist. And the Quantum Realm is pretty chaotic in that regards (with continuous imperfections existing for mere moments).

There is perfection found everywhere though in Nature, as you described through your examples. Symmetry, Harmonics, etc.
And Imperfection as well, our Universe is born with this, as far as we know.
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter.

The angular momentum of many galaxies has been measured and at the moment it looks as if our universe is rotating.

That's a new one, had to look that one up, interesting...inconclusive though.
https://physicsworld.com/a/was-the-universe-born-spinning/

And I'm afraid Black Holes aren't always perfect spheres (most are though, asshole know-all moment here), it depends on the angular momentum of the Black Hole. When it spins
you would see a slight deformation of the event horizon.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2014/04/black-hole

Black holes either can be born with spin, like if they form from the collapse of a rotating massive star, or can acquire spin from the rotational energy of infalling gas. We think spinning black holes have “ring”-shaped singularities; their exotic properties have even led some to consider using black hole interiors as “wormholes” for time travel. The event horizons of spinning black holes are flatter along their equators (like both Earth and Jupiter are flatter along their equators). A higher rotation rate means this flattening is more pronounced. Although a spinning black hole has no actual rotating surface around it, the surrounding space is twisted in the direction of rotation and dragged along with the spin.

 

[Sorn]

But there it is again. Even a black hole can apparently not be absolutely perfect spherical. This would only be possible if there was nothing else. Nothing in which it can rotate, nothing that can suck it in more strongly on one side, nothing that can make it vibrate, like another black hole in the vicinity.
And if there was nothing else but a black hole... Would it be perfect? The more perfect it would be, the more static it would be.

 

[dragulagu]

But there it is again. Even a black hole can apparently not be absolutely perfect spherical. This would only be possible if there was nothing else. Nothing in which it can rotate, nothing that can suck it in more strongly on one side, nothing that can make it vibrate, like another black hole in the vicinity.
And if there was nothing else but a black hole... Would it be perfect? The more perfect it would be, the more static it would be.

What you describe there is what our Universe is going towards, the Black Hole era. Where nothing will be left but Supermassive black holes formed through other black hole mergers or as sole remainders within our Universe. But even those will die out eventually, evaporated into scattered energy throughout Space. Static is just not something that can exist in our Universe. Unless you know some way to stop Time. There will always be change. Maybe the Singularity before the Big Bang could be described as Perfection, Time did not exist then.

 

[dragulagu]

And on a sidetone there (yeah I know, it's Forbes..)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...nd-final-era-of-our-universe/?sh=44474dbd4e5d

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Wouldn't mind a change of pace just to get off the perpetual motion machine of endless work and forced consumption as well escape the social hell.

Couldn't find a higher quality clip.

 

[Sorn]

Maybe the Singularity before the Big Bang could be described as Perfection, Time did not exist then.

Where there is no time, there is no change, because change is time.
Thus timelessness would be a stable state.
But as we know, there must have been time, because the state "before" the Big Bang was not stable.
On the other hand, is the universe striving towards a stable state?

 

[dragulagu]

Where there is no time, there is no change, because change is time.
Thus timelessness would be a stable state.
But as we know, there must have been time, because the state "before" the Big Bang was not stable.
On the other hand, is the universe striving towards a stable state?

Change is time or time is change, however you see it, correct.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.

Alongside and inspired by his work in quantum gravity, Rovelli puts forward the idea of ‘physics without time’. This stems from the fact that some equations of quantum gravity (such as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which assigns quantum states to the Universe) can be written without any reference to time at all.

As Rovelli explains, the apparent existence of time — in our perceptions and in physical descriptions, written in the mathematical languages of Newton, Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger — comes not from knowledge, but from ignorance. ‘Forward in time’ is the direction in which entropy increases, and in which we gain information.

Guess I'll have some literature to cover.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079454YW3/?tag=infjs-20
"Narrated by Benedict Cumberbatch"

 

[Satyagrahi]

In my view "we" are merely consciousness experiencing itself. As such consciousness's one demand as I see it is novelty. It i.e. consciousness (or life the universe and everything) won't allow a steady state / perfection to last because it would be bored.

 

[Sorn]

Yes, the consciousness is an interesting thing in this context. According to my recent considerations,
consciousness is the only thing that can be infinite. It can exist without limits and yet it can change.
Maybe it is the only "thing" that is perfect.

 

[dragulagu]

So, how is the consciousness seen here in this case. Is it individual? Could it be a shared one?
Or perhaps an universal consciousness exists separate from our own or any other consciousness?
Would that one be static? Or perfect? Or unlimited in potential states perhaps?

 

[Sorn]

I am not sure yet.
Imagine that the only existing consciousness has at some point decided to imagine a world and
to forget everything about its previous existence and the creation of this new world.
This one being would not know that all the other beings it encounters are actually itself.
I know this is a somewhat difficult subject, but we cannot really know anything about ourselves.

So I think I am

 

[dragulagu]

A while ago we discussed this in the forum in another thread. What own consciousness would be. Or how the world is perceived by it; is
the world that "we" experience the true world? Or is our experience just a conscious mirror reflection of the outside world. One of 'em philosophical threads, I'm sure.

So, since there's a lockdown here anyway and got nothing specific planned now, we can try some though experimenting if you want.
You got an interesting on there with imagining a world from a certain point. Are we assuming here that this existing consciousness is one that perceives
everything in existence? Let's say, one which dreams a world or existence like this and we are all shared observers.

 

[Sorn]

There is the well-known question of whether a tree falling somewhere in a distant forest without a listener makes a sound.
If you extrapolate this question you get to the question whether a god exists.
At least I go so far as to claim that there is no existence without consciousness.
Existence, in turn, is a concept of time. So time without space or matter would be for me a pure form of existence, simply a consciousness.
What had preoccupied me in the last few weeks was the question,
why should a Big Bang suddenly happen, or
why should God suddenly create the world.
No matter which point of view you take, it happened in any case.

I could imagine many ways in which a single consciousness would experience everything.
But in the same way I can also imagine a divided consciousness, which is unique in every being lives.
We have no way of finding out what it is really like. Of course, the question can also arise what it means to be real.

 

[dragulagu]

There is the well-known question of whether a tree falling somewhere in a distant forest without a listener makes a sound.

It would, it just would not be observed by the one asking the question. But it would be by the animals in the vicinity, or the ground where the tree would fall on. Even if we remove these listeners
away from the picture, the tree would still produce sound waves. And if I wanted to know whether that tree has fallen, I could walk to the spot and observe then what the result is.

If you extrapolate this question you get to the question whether a god exists.

In what sense?

At least I go so far as to claim that there is no existence without consciousness.
Existence, in turn, is a concept of time. So time without space or matter would be for me a pure form of existence, simply a consciousness.
What had preoccupied me in the last few weeks was the question,
why should a Big Bang suddenly happen, or
why should God suddenly create the world.
No matter which point of view you take, it happened in any case.

I think that's a fallacy we humans, as conscious beings, tend to make when philosophising about the existence of life. Adding meaning to existence where
a form of conscious observation is required for it to exist and progress. We can't prove that, I think. Whatever happens here, lightyears away or at the other "end" of the Universe,
happens, with or without a conscious consent to it. Existence does not need any conscious approval.

The same is with the Big Bang, which did happen in any case, whether there would be an underlying reason to it or not.

Not shoving the topic into existential nihilism, but I think to process the subject of "why existence (consciously) exists" we should start off from the point
that there is no need for the "why" on existence.

Or in other words. The Big Bang happened. Could we possibly add a reason to why it would or should have happened.

I could imagine many ways in which a single consciousness would experience everything.
But in the same way I can also imagine a divided consciousness, which is unique in every being lives.
We have no way of finding out what it is really like. Of course, the question can also arise what it means to be real.

True. Would it be possible, in general to ever perfectly describe what consciousness is?

 

[Sorn]

Or in other words. The Big Bang happened. Could we possibly add a reason to why it would or should have happened.

The laws of thermodynamics.
Are they always correct?

If so, there would not have been a big bang. If not, we could not speculate about the future of the universe.

True. Would it be possible, in general to ever perfectly describe what consciousness is?

If you know the story of Münchhausen and his horse..., it will be impossible to prove anything from within itself.
Even mathematics cannot prove itself (Gödel)

But the only thing we really know is that we are.

So I think I am