The Empathic Universe

[Gibsense]

FireStarter James suggested that when the expansion of the universe resulted in a person being positioned beyond the event horizon of an observable universe communication could be established by an intermediary. I argued to the contrary by insisting that a message could not be established as the distance involved and its expansion is unchanged and that sticking an intermediate relay into the process made no difference.

However, on second thoughts, there is a connective "Force" (?) that sidesteps 'messaging by light'. Maybe. It is a bit wild but I have no reputation to protect so here goes - FSJ might be right......

If the Relay is aware/intelligent it can become empathic with both parties at opposite positions within and beyond the event horizon (of the observable universe as centred on any person/thing). That is the emotion (?) from one might be realised by the other as empathy. It seems a crazy idea to suggest that empathy may have a scientific reality. To get closer to a scientific proposition I might envisage that awareness is a continuum with phase shifts to our sort of awareness from electron to a dolphin.

Could it be that awareness/empathy is something fundamental even like Time and Space? Could Entanglement be an "in your face" example? Could this explain how the universe knows itself? By that I mean acts as if all parts were of one common whole despite expansion etc. It seems like an idea on the edge of Sanity, lol.

Comments to the contrary as well as in support are most welcome, lol

 

[promytius]

Maybe a brew OR wine...
Through what medium would the communication be carried?

 

[Gibsense]

Maybe a brew OR wine...
Through what medium would the communication be carried?

Yes there is no doubt that wine and beer increase empathy. That aside the point is that a medium is not needed. Maybe. What might be needed is a degree of 'Sameness'. Familiarity, unity. oneness?

 

[promytius]

If i follow you, whatever the "sameness" is, it still has to cross between ME and NOT ME. The separation is based in our individual uniqueness. There is a "me" and a "not me" and the distance between them, which if not comprised of a message-carrying medium, leaves "me" unable to message "not me", if I'm at all following.

(I don't consume alcohol, so forgive my misunderstanding their efficacy.)

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

I argued to the contrary by insisting that a message could not be established as the distance involved and its expansion is unchanged and that sticking an intermediate relay into the process made no difference.

If I understand correctly, I think that I agree with you.When we talk about receiving a comminication from 'X' who is at the limit of receiving, and then relaying this communication to 'Y' equally distant in the opposite direction, we are really indulging in rather silly meaningless semantics.

If X's message is intelligible after, say, 50 or 100 years, it cannot be personal to the recipient. Bear in mind X would have had to receive a message from you 50 or 100 years prior to his sending. What possible significance could such transmissions have? What would be any point in relaying them?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

If i follow you, whatever the "sameness" is, it still has to cross between ME and NOT ME. The separation is based in our individual uniqueness. There is a "me" and a "not me" and the distance between them, which if not comprised of a message-carrying medium, leaves "me" unable to message "not me", if I'm at all following.

(I don't consume alcohol, so forgive my misunderstanding their efficacy.)

Lol!
Anyway, some people seem aware of the state or condition of others and as a result have a sympathetic reaction. Clearly a sane reaction to this would explain it as observing signals via the usual means of the senses. However, Maybe, just maybe there is some other process involved. I suspect this is diverting from Cosmology as a subject and should be put on ice (?)

I suppose that instead of illustrating the concept by saying my dog knows the walking route without indication from me let me use a thought experiment. It will illustrate the idea but will of course be ridiculously impossible to accomplish in reality:-
Imagine a rod of some imaginary material extending from you beyond the event horizon where there is someone else. Both people are irrelevant to this. It is about the rod. The rod must be aware of its wholeness; no part can be considered 'preferential'. Similarly, 3-dimensional space can (as a part of say a hyperspherical universe) be considered as 'something'. That is 'a whole object', a thing.

The word empathy is perhaps not quite right but it implies a characteristic of a 'thing' that may exist just from the wholeness of something. eg life or a rod . Yes I agree with anyone reading - this is all a step too far

 

[Catastrophe]

The word empathy is perhaps not quite right but it implies a characteristic of a 'thing' that may exist just from the wholeness of something. eg life or a rod . Yes I agree with anyone reading - this is all a step too far

Yes.

 

[Fire-Starter James]

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to get around c as a limit. What I was trying to do was test the assumption that the cosmic expansion is Newtonian, that is, V(r)=Hr. If it can be shown that the relay could work, even for a moment, then Newtonian expansion is disproved.

btw: Relativistic expansion does not have any red limits. Event horizons have nothing on the other side, because nothing ever crosses them. Neutronium on this side, no existence at all on the other side, not even a vacuum. There can never be a naked singularity in this theory, and the infinite universe appears to be bounded by the same event horizon in all directions, for all observers.