I haven’t a clue… 
He could be talking of Chardin’s Omega point, but hard telling
Teilhard called this “The Omega Point.” These days, we call it “the Singularity.” The idea is the same: at some point, the network “wakes up” and a superhuman intelligence emerges within it. Once a superintelligence has emerged, we’re fundamentally unable to comprehend what happens next. Our exponential curve has effectively gone to infinity, and passed beyond the limits of perception.
1 Like
But all that is antropomorphizing the story. It does not have to be super intelligent. It only needs to be mathematically quasi-intelligent to produce the same result.
Occam still rules
Chardin was a Jesuit priest to his last breath. And he was a paleontologist. He tried to square the two. His thesis is not defensible
And what/where/when/who is this “energy” or “space” in regard to dimensionless non-relativity of the absolute context? (i.e.Reality)
How does a “Trillion” anything figure into it?
Math is something we do, and is obviously in the category of a subset of when it comes to the non-relative singularity of the absolute context that is Reality.
Is a word missing between “of” and “when”? Because this doesn’t even seem grammatical.
Anthropomorphizing is what humans do. First humans had animism and then they decided it wasn’t good enough to make animals and things gods, so they made god look like them.
1 Like
As CC observes "the self-absorbed nature of humanity, ".
Very much so. If it doesn’t look like us, we eventually kill it, but the imaginary friend that looks like them, they don’t kill or at least it takes them a very long time to let go of that image and realize it’s just their imagination.
Energy and space are not a “who”.
Please excuse me while I speak for the group.
It seems that no matter what any says, or asks, you will not respond to that. Instead, you ask another question about how it fits into your paradigm. We don’t know what that is, since you have not defined it in any way, other than with more terms that you created. You came back to ask rhetorically, “You understand what singularity implies right?” We have understandings of that word, but they don’t fit your definition, your sense of what “reality” is, or what the “absolute” is. So, we can’t state our understanding in terms that are “in regard to” your terms. You speak of the ineffable, then challenge us because we don’t understand what your words are describing, but “ineffable” means something beyond words.
1 Like
Why not just focus on the context of the entire statement before you declare some unrelated bias as proof that the entire statement made no sense?
Here it is again…
Please focus on the key principal here! “dimensionless non-relativity of the absolute context”. The now infamous but precise understanding of Reality-as-it-actually-is. The dynamic expression of Relativity being the emergent subset. All relative infinities being subsets of absolute infinitude.
Then perhaps the conversation will get out of this dead end loop.
But no one has this understanding. And I include you in my set of no one. There’s no principle. There’s just a claim you make that you know what this is.
People have to understand the meaning of your words to get the entire context. If one thing is missing the entire context cannot be fully comprehended. Even then, Lausten is right. If what we think isn’t in line with your thinking, we are wrong.
Question;
How do we know that a black hole has a massive singularity at its bottom and nothing on the other side?
Does a whirlpool in water have a massive object at its bottom? What if I pull the plug in my bath and water is draining, causing a black hole in the tub.
We can say that the earth is the massive object on the other side of the hole, but if that were the case with a black hole then what is on the other side of the black hole?
Could it be that a black hole is an opening in the fabric of spacetime and spacetime, along with stuff is “draining” into another plenum?
Would that not give the appearance of an expanding universe, but it just means that there is less matter and spacetime appears to be expanding.
So the question also is, if spacetime is expanding outward or inward as a result of drainage into another universe?
We know spacetime stretches inside a black hole , no?
Multiple universes???
Why not?
OTOH, Talking about a BB, this actually describes the origin of a BB.
Relativity showed that gravity is related to the curvature of space and that a black hole is a place where the curvature becomes so extreme that a “hole” forms. Imagine a waterbed with a flat surface. Now place a bowling ball on it, the surface is distorted or bent. With a lot of mass, say a lead bowling ball, a “hole” forms on the surface of the bed. Similarly, a mass distorts or bends space. To form a black hole, a lot of matter is needed and must be concentrated in a small amount of space.
With sufficient mass, gravitational attraction within the matter itself overcomes all other forces and matter begins to collapse. The matter continues to collapse to a point that is known as a singularity.
This point has infinite mass and density and is infinitely small. The effect of this point on space-time is to distort it so that nothing can escape from the immediate region, not even light. Since no light can escape we say the region is black hence the name black hole. Near singularities the known laws of physics break down. For this reason considerable time and effort is being spent studying this strange phenomena.
So, if that singularity has a treshold is it possible that a super massive black eventually releases all that pure energy and creates a new universe.
That also might account for a multiverse.
It also sounds like the old saying, “Every action has an opposite reaction”. If it explodes outwards, eventually it has to go back inward. It might not be how we think of inward though. It could also very well cause a “Mirror Universe”.
If I understand it correctly; If the universe is shaped like Plato’s Dodecahedron, the opposite end of the universe would have an upside down mirror image of the regular universe.
Shape of the universe[edit]
Various models have been proposed for the global geometry of the universe. In addition to the primitive geometries, these proposals include the Poincaré dodecahedral space, a positively curved space consisting of a regular dodecahedron whose opposite faces correspond (with a small twist). This was proposed by Jean-Pierre Luminet and colleagues in 2003,[14][15] and an optimal orientation on the sky for the model was estimated in 2008.[[16]]
There is no rational reason for not accepting Reality in toto as non-relative. Relativity and its infinite iterations being subsets.
It is an a-priori fact. All implications of which, including our subjective experience are the realm of effects. Which I’m doing my best not to introduce speculation about into the conversation. At least not until we all get on the other side of this impasse.