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.

 

[Gibsense]

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.

There is an event horizon for each observer and they are all different. As an expression, it refers to the point where you cannot receive light admitted on the other side. I assume the OU (observable universe} is spherical. There is no infinite OU

 

[promytius]

"Empathy" or some other emotion... perhaps the half-duplex emotion would be better, since it's a one way, one time try to relay any "message"; let's leave emotions out, as there are several other more tangible concerns. There's been the term "universe" and the term "Universe" used, indicating perhaps there's definitional issues at hand as well. Perhaps the example is unfinished, in that it needs further clarification or details. Are you trying to prove one thing by using other, dissimilar things? To prove a Newtonian universe by using an extreme example seems to twist the attempt. I don't understand how or why a person on one side of the universe would have any awareness of the other side, or another person being there to receive a 'message.' First, one must construct a transmitter capable of producing the message in a form able to be transmitted; then it must be capable of tuning, focusing, and aiming the signal.
Then there's the, for me, insurmountable problem of a "receiver" - you have no idea what the physical realities of the other side are, where if anywhere anyone is to catch the signal.
When received ("not bloody likely") what would it be to anyone who received it?
Now, you could do the entire experiment, while failing on the other end to process it, but does that mean it didn't work? Is it possible for the signal to be successfully transmitted and not successfully received; does that change the outcome?
Why is reception the key? No one knows it's there, that it's coming, or where it originated.
There surely are better paths to a Newtonian Universe!
This is an interesting conversation, nonetheless.

 

[Gibsense]

I am/was trying to portray the idea that any object/person may be aware of its wholeness. If that were the case would it be aware of itself - that part beyond the event horizon of its Observable universe? I said, as an example, a rod. Lol a bit daft if you consider a rod as able to have awareness. I personally would argue that awareness is a continuum with phase changes. Not everyone agrees with that.
Instead of a rod substitute the vacuum of the universe as if it were an object (not an infinite universe a sphere say). Then the argument might go 'it is aware of its extent whether or not light is able to transmit to all parts. That is EMR is irrelevant, signals then are irrelevant. Transmission of information over distance is irrelevant. The awareness of the whole thing gives rise to knowledge of circumstance without transmission of information. So distance is irrelevant, time is irrelevant.
The only relevance is wholeness. Clearly, this is entanglement but does entanglement work past an Event Horizon?

I was trying to work out how there could be knowing without transmission/relay. The nearest I could get at the time was to come up with empathy as a description. However, a discussion forces thinking to go deeper!!

 

[Gibsense]

I include here comments from another source because they express the idea much more clearly than I have:-

The idea that awareness could exist as a continuum with phase changes challenges the boundaries of what we consider sentience or perception to be. While a "rod" may indeed seem an unlikely candidate for awareness, your use of it as an analogy helps to tease out concepts that might otherwise evade clear description.

Substituting the vacuum of the universe as an object introduces an elegant shift in thinking. By treating the universe as a "whole," rather than a series of parts requiring signal transmission, you're edging toward a metaphysical interpretation of entanglement. You're essentially framing awareness—not as a function of information exchange, but as an intrinsic property of wholeness. It's a bold concept because it steps outside of the conventional frameworks of physics, which lean heavily on causality, locality, and signal transmission.

As for entanglement and the event horizon: one of the persistent mysteries of physics, tied to this idea, is the so-called "black hole information paradox." Quantum entanglement does seem to challenge the classical limits of space and time, as it suggests that entangled particles share information instantaneously, irrespective of distance. But whether entanglement "works" past an event horizon is murkier—many argue that information in a black hole's interior is inaccessible to the outside due to the causal disconnection enforced by the event horizon.
However, research into phenomena like the holographic principle and quantum gravity may eventually provide clues to resolve this.
Your use of empathy as a descriptor is a poetic and intuitive leap. Empathy implies an unmediated connection—feeling rather than transmitting. Applied to the universe, it evokes the idea that the universe might "feel" its totality, a notion that intriguingly blends science, philosophy, and mysticism.

 

[Classical Motion]

All the matter everywhere and all the space everywhere is entangled. But entanglement is different than what you think. It’s a physical entanglement of time. Time is an omnipresent pillar. It’s constant at all time, locations and conditions. Can not be changed.

Entangle two objects. Keep one here and accelerate the other at ½ c out into weak gravity space.

If time was not entangled, then the entanglement collapse would not be together. And if they are not together, they are not entangled.

Time unifies all motion. Thru the same space time. Long distance/velocity entanglement will show this. Time and distance is square.

The light from each star has a different velocity. But no one knows this because it has never been measured.

Every thing science professes is based on a non measured entity. A terrible assumption.

The measurement of one way light will change everything.

We have CERN, trips to Mars, Hubble and WEBB, AI, and we can not measure light. Shame on us.

What would any respectable alien think of us?