Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Black Hole War, or how Adelphe and Mario are both right concerning God's foreknowledge
7 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2011 - 4:44PM #1
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664
Some years ago Mario started a thread on S & R, God's foreknowledge in incompatible with man's free will. Adelphe was of the opinion that God does indeed have complete foreknowledge of all people and events, but this does not in any manner preclude man's free will.

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.

Along the way to solving the problem, Susskind saw that two incompatible views concerning black hole physics, were both correct. If an outside observer from a safe distance, sees someone cross the event horizon of a black hole, they are, zip-zap, forever lost. However, the person who crosses the event horizon doesn't notice anything unusual, just goes about their merry old way.

Susskind puzzled over this for years, but eventually saw that both versions were correct, from their perspective (applying Bohr's principle of complementarity).

If we apply Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, we can see how both can be right. One view is like that of the person watching from a safe distance, who sees the person crossing the event horizon and disappearing. The other view view is like the person who crosses the event horizon and does not notice anything out of the ordinary.

Gotta go, library cutting me off.......

tbc

stardustpilgrim
Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2011 - 6:56PM #2
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

"One view is like
that of the person watching from a safe distance, who sees the person crossing
the event horizon and disappearing. The other view is like the person who
crosses the event horizon and does not notice anything out of the ordinary."


 


So you are proposing that God is in a black hole, he can see everything but cannot
interact with us?

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 08, 2011 - 9:34PM #3
Blü
Posts: 26,191

IF a being were truly omniscient THEN he/she/it/they/other would have perfect knowledge of the future.  Hence no collapsing probability waves, no chance changes or unforseeable quantum effects, no nothing - the future would be as fixed as the past.


IF a being were truly omnipresent THEN he/she/it/they/other would be personally present in every place in every time and if sentient, would directly know all of those things with the same result - the future would be as fixed as the past.


IF a being were truly omnipotent THEN he/she/it/they/ other would be able to be omniscient and omnipresent just by wanting to be.


There are already clear reasons why the idea of absolutely free will is a nonsense.  If omni beings existed, there'd be even more such reasons.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 8:17AM #4
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,177

sdp


Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Some years ago Mario started a thread on S & R, God's foreknowledge i[s] incompatible with man's free will [see thread "God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with genuine human freedom", OPs #8 and #9]. Adelphe was of the opinion that God does indeed have complete foreknowledge of all people and events, but this does not in any manner preclude man's free will.

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.

Along the way to solving the problem, Susskind saw that two incompatible views concerning black hole physics, were both correct. If an outside observer from a safe distance, sees someone cross the event horizon of a black hole, they are, zip-zap, forever lost. However, the person who crosses the event horizon doesn't notice anything unusual, just goes about their merry old way.

Susskind puzzled over this for years, but eventually saw that both versions were correct, from their perspective (applying Bohr's principle of complementarity).

If we apply Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, we can see how both can be right. One view is like that of the person watching from a safe distance, who sees the person crossing the event horizon and disappearing. The other view view is like the person who crosses the event horizon and does not notice anything out of the ordinary.


First, you are obviously enthralled with this book, but you will have to spend more than just a few words to illustrate your ... er ... insight of a cogent parallel between the question of Black Holes (and of the loss of information depending on the POV of the observer) and the question of God's Foreknowledge (and of the incompatibility thereof with genuine human freedom, were it affirmed that God's Omniscience [#] is total, rather than inherent).


Second, if I were you, I would take these mental exercises of theoretical physicists with a pinch of salt. An excellent "mind purgative salt" is the NYT book review "The Theory That Ate the World", August 22, 2008, by George Johnson, author of “Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order.”


MdS


[#] See Wikipedia > Omniscience > Definitions

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2011 - 5:35PM #5
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Some years ago Mario started a thread on S & R, God's foreknowledge in incompatible with man's free will. Adelphe was of the opinion that God does indeed have complete foreknowledge of all people and events, but this does not in any manner preclude man's free will.

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.

Along the way to solving the problem, Susskind saw that two incompatible views concerning black hole physics, were both correct. If an outside observer from a safe distance, sees someone cross the event horizon of a black hole, they are, zip-zap, forever lost. However, the person who crosses the event horizon doesn't notice anything unusual, just goes about their merry old way.

Susskind puzzled over this for years, but eventually saw that both versions were correct, from their perspective (applying Bohr's principle of complementarity).

If we apply Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, we can see how both can be right. One view is like that of the person watching from a safe distance, who sees the person crossing the event horizon and disappearing. The other view view is like the person who crosses the event horizon and does not notice anything out of the ordinary.

Gotta go, library cutting me off.......

tbc

stardustpilgrim



I read the replies, thanks.


For now I'm going to call the view of Alice, who crosses the event horizin, and Bob, who watches from a safe distance, an analogy for our perspective (that of Alice) and God's perspective (Bob's). But I will also say that, within the universe, God operates by the principles whereby he created the universe (this gets us by Blu's objections).


If you will recall from Einstein's example of twins, one who travels near the speed of light (Hannah), and one who stays home (Anna), within their own frame of reference, the passage of time seems quite ordinary for each. However, when Hannah makes the return trip she discovers that Anna has aged considerably more than she.


Let's also recall that in the General Theory of Relativity Einstein made the great leap that gravity and acceleration were indistinguishable. Therefore we can trade the twins Hannah and Anna for Bob and Alice. Alice approaching a black hole is equal to Hannah traveling (accelerating) to near light speed. Bob watching from a safe distance is equal to Anna staying home.


As Alice approaches the event horizon, time slows down for her in relation to Bob watching. That's one point of view. But Bob sees Alice cross the event horizon and disappear into the black hole, zip-zap, the second point of view. Again, Susskind says that both points of view are accurate, despite being contradictory.  


Susskind says that Alice enters the event horizon and notices nothing unusual (she is not stretched out as a string Italian noodles, or crushed to death as I have read many times would happen...which is what I presume Susskind means by nothing unusual happening...).


So, the analogy.... We live out our life minute by minute in time sequence. This is Alice crossing the event horizon, and from her perspective life going on as usual. But God/Bob sees our whole life, from a safe distance, zip-zap, flash as though in an instant of time. So from God's perspective, he has foreknowledge.


But from the perspective of Alice, inside a bubble, so to speak, she can and does make decisions with no reference to God's foreknowledge. Alice is completely free (beyond Blu's objections) to act as she chooses (let's say she has a very big spaceship, with every wish and desire she could imagine being able to be fulfilled).


Therefore, Adelphe is correct in that God has complete foreknowledge of the life of Alice (but again, viewing from a safe distance). But Mario is also correct, because within her own frame of reference, Alice is free to do as she chooses. And additionally, if God were to enter the world of Alice, he would forfet foreknowledge, he would be subject to the laws of the world of Alice.  


Adelphe and Mario, both correct.


.................


Now, Mario always accused me of living on the fence, not choosing between his position or Adelphe's. It was my opinion that God does not have complete knowledge of future events. However, I also stated that it was theoretically possible for God to have complete foreknowledge, yet for us to maintain our free will. I couldn't demonstrate, then, I believed this.


I believe I have does so now, at least by analogy.......


I will consider if it is more than analogy, via 2 Peter 3:8, the formula that for God, one day = one thousand years and one thousand years = one day. We can pretty-much say, by this, that God is timeless, as we can take each day of a thousand years and convert that day to a thousand years. By doing so God can move in any direction in time. However, we must maintain the rule that God can only do this from a safe distance. If God enters our world, he becomes subject to linear time.


And, it would seem that God chose to do so in the (Second) person of Jesus.......but that's another story........


sdp

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2011 - 12:12PM #6
mindis1
Posts: 9,330

Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.


SDP, you read some very interesting books. I did not know that Susskind had written this book. It sounds like he was nicely diplomatic about Hawking’s concession. At the time of Hawking’s press conference announcing his concession (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html), Kip Thorne had not conceded, on the grounds that he wanted to see the math. And given Hawking’s explanation, and John Baez’s explanation of Hawking’s explanation, I think I might done like Thorne and stood my ground. There are obviously some major assumptions going on with Hawking’s “results”. I doubt that Hawking’s concession made anyone feel better about his Euclidean path integral approach, nor what Baez calls “the Wick rotation trick”.


In fact, at the time of his reporting on this press conference, Baez, too, is concerned with the assumptions and the actual math:


In the problem at hand here, Hawking focuses on two classical solutions, or more precisely two classes of them. One describes a spacetime with no black hole, the other describes a spacetime with a black hole which lasts forever. Each one gives a contribution to the semiclassical approximation of the integral over all geometries. To get answers to physical questions, he needs to sum over both. In principle he should sum over infinitely many others, too, but nobody knows how, so he's probably hoping the crux of the problem can be understood by considering just these two.


He says that if you just do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there's no black hole, you'll find - unsurprisingly - that no information is lost as time passes.


He also says that if you do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there is a black hole, you'll find - surprisingly - that the answer is zero for a lot of questions you can measure the answers to far from the black hole. In physics jargon, this is because a bunch of "correlation functions decay exponentially".


So, when you add up both answers to see if information is lost in the real problem, where you can't be sure if there's a black hole or not, you get the same answer as if there were no black hole!


[Quoting Hawking] “So in the end, everyone was right, in a way. Information is lost in topologically nontrivial metrics, like the eternal black hole. On the other hand, information is preserved in topologically trivial metrics. The confusion and paradox arose because people thought classically, in terms of a single topology for spacetime. It was either R4, or a black hole. But the Feynman sum over histories allows it to be both at once. One can not tell which topology contributed the observation, any more than one can tell which slit the electron went through, in the two slits experiment. All that observation at infinity can determine is that there is a unitary mapping from initial states to final, and that information is not lost.”


The mysterious part is why the geometries near the classical solution where there's a black hole don't contribute at all to information loss, even though they do contribute to other important things, like the Hawking radiation. Here I'd need to see an actual calculation. Hawking gives a nice hand-wavy topological argument, but that's not enough for me.


But, perhaps Hawking just wanted an opportunity to present John Preskill with that encyclopedia on baseball. (Physicists are so goofy.)


Anyway, I was wondering how the issue of information loss in a radiating eternal black hole (or information preservation in a black hole at infinity) might bear upon your views on information?

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2011 - 11:44AM #7
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Oct 10, 2011 -- 12:12PM, mindis1 wrote:


Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.


SDP, you read some very interesting books. I did not know that Susskind had written this book. It sounds like he was nicely diplomatic about Hawking’s concession. At the time of Hawking’s press conference announcing his concession (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html), Kip Thorne had not conceded, on the grounds that he wanted to see the math. And given Hawking’s explanation, and John Baez’s explanation of Hawking’s explanation, I think I might done like Thorne and stood my ground. There are obviously some major assumptions going on with Hawking’s “results”. I doubt that Hawking’s concession made anyone feel better about his Euclidean path integral approach, nor what Baez calls “the Wick rotation trick”.


In fact, at the time of his reporting on this press conference, Baez, too, is concerned with the assumptions and the actual math:


In the problem at hand here, Hawking focuses on two classical solutions, or more precisely two classes of them. One describes a spacetime with no black hole, the other describes a spacetime with a black hole which lasts forever. Each one gives a contribution to the semiclassical approximation of the integral over all geometries. To get answers to physical questions, he needs to sum over both. In principle he should sum over infinitely many others, too, but nobody knows how, so he's probably hoping the crux of the problem can be understood by considering just these two.


He says that if you just do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there's no black hole, you'll find - unsurprisingly - that no information is lost as time passes.


He also says that if you do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there is a black hole, you'll find - surprisingly - that the answer is zero for a lot of questions you can measure the answers to far from the black hole. In physics jargon, this is because a bunch of "correlation functions decay exponentially".


So, when you add up both answers to see if information is lost in the real problem, where you can't be sure if there's a black hole or not, you get the same answer as if there were no black hole!


[Quoting Hawking] “So in the end, everyone was right, in a way. Information is lost in topologically nontrivial metrics, like the eternal black hole. On the other hand, information is preserved in topologically trivial metrics. The confusion and paradox arose because people thought classically, in terms of a single topology for spacetime. It was either R4, or a black hole. But the Feynman sum over histories allows it to be both at once. One can not tell which topology contributed the observation, any more than one can tell which slit the electron went through, in the two slits experiment. All that observation at infinity can determine is that there is a unitary mapping from initial states to final, and that information is not lost.”


The mysterious part is why the geometries near the classical solution where there's a black hole don't contribute at all to information loss, even though they do contribute to other important things, like the Hawking radiation. Here I'd need to see an actual calculation. Hawking gives a nice hand-wavy topological argument, but that's not enough for me.


But, perhaps Hawking just wanted an opportunity to present John Preskill with that encyclopedia on baseball. (Physicists are so goofy.)


Anyway, I was wondering how the issue of information loss in a radiating eternal black hole (or information preservation in a black hole at infinity) might bear upon your views on information?




mindis1 ........You are talking beyond my knowledge. I just read books mostly written for the layman. (My interests are almost equally popular science and metaphysical/philosophica/spiritual). I will have to check out the meaning of radiating eternal black hole and (or information preservation in a black hole at infinity). However, radiating would seem to indicate Hawking radiation. In that case, it would seem not to be an eternal black hole, as, if I recall correctly, in billions of years, under the right circumstances, black holes will eventually evaporate.


Saying that I also recognize that the name of something does not necessarily correspond to its meaning.


Also, without reviewing Susskind, if I recall correctly, a "copy" of information (if not the information itself?), remains on the event horizon (IOW, does not actually enter the black hole).


Also, something very interesting from the book which I may start another thread on, Susskind says that our world is actually a hologram, with the information on the boundary of the universe (just as information is on the event horizon). Yes, our "material" world is a hologram. This is not really difficult to grasp, as matter is mostly empty space, (the diameter of an atom, protons-neutrons to electrons, being like a "fly in a cathedral")


Equally intriguing, and why The Black Hole War was so significant to Susskind, he says that 9,999,999,999 out of 10,000,000,000 bits of information in the universe are associated with the horizons of black holes (pg 434).


I'll get back to you.........


sdp 

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 17, 2011 - 4:00PM #8
mindis1
Posts: 9,330

Oct 15, 2011 -- 11:44AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


Oct 10, 2011 -- 12:12PM, mindis1 wrote:


Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.


SDP, you read some very interesting books. I did not know that Susskind had written this book. It sounds like he was nicely diplomatic about Hawking’s concession. At the time of Hawking’s press conference announcing his concession (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html), Kip Thorne had not conceded, on the grounds that he wanted to see the math. And given Hawking’s explanation, and John Baez’s explanation of Hawking’s explanation, I think I might done like Thorne and stood my ground. There are obviously some major assumptions going on with Hawking’s “results”. I doubt that Hawking’s concession made anyone feel better about his Euclidean path integral approach, nor what Baez calls “the Wick rotation trick”.


In fact, at the time of his reporting on this press conference, Baez, too, is concerned with the assumptions and the actual math:


In the problem at hand here, Hawking focuses on two classical solutions, or more precisely two classes of them. One describes a spacetime with no black hole, the other describes a spacetime with a black hole which lasts forever. Each one gives a contribution to the semiclassical approximation of the integral over all geometries. To get answers to physical questions, he needs to sum over both. In principle he should sum over infinitely many others, too, but nobody knows how, so he's probably hoping the crux of the problem can be understood by considering just these two.


He says that if you just do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there's no black hole, you'll find - unsurprisingly - that no information is lost as time passes.


He also says that if you do the integral over geometries near the classical solution where there is a black hole, you'll find - surprisingly - that the answer is zero for a lot of questions you can measure the answers to far from the black hole. In physics jargon, this is because a bunch of "correlation functions decay exponentially".


So, when you add up both answers to see if information is lost in the real problem, where you can't be sure if there's a black hole or not, you get the same answer as if there were no black hole!


[Quoting Hawking] “So in the end, everyone was right, in a way. Information is lost in topologically nontrivial metrics, like the eternal black hole. On the other hand, information is preserved in topologically trivial metrics. The confusion and paradox arose because people thought classically, in terms of a single topology for spacetime. It was either R4, or a black hole. But the Feynman sum over histories allows it to be both at once. One can not tell which topology contributed the observation, any more than one can tell which slit the electron went through, in the two slits experiment. All that observation at infinity can determine is that there is a unitary mapping from initial states to final, and that information is not lost.”


The mysterious part is why the geometries near the classical solution where there's a black hole don't contribute at all to information loss, even though they do contribute to other important things, like the Hawking radiation. Here I'd need to see an actual calculation. Hawking gives a nice hand-wavy topological argument, but that's not enough for me.


But, perhaps Hawking just wanted an opportunity to present John Preskill with that encyclopedia on baseball. (Physicists are so goofy.)


Anyway, I was wondering how the issue of information loss in a radiating eternal black hole (or information preservation in a black hole at infinity) might bear upon your views on information?




mindis1 ........You are talking beyond my knowledge.



Had it not been for Baez’s explanation of Hawking’s explanation, I would have been completely lost in space. Now I’m only partly lost in space.


I keep on wanting to say something about Hawking's path integral approach and Wick rotation.  But I must contemplate things further, and study a thing or two.


Equally intriguing, and why The Black Hole War was so significant to Susskind, he says that 9,999,999,999 out of 10,000,000,000 bits of information in the universe are associated with the horizons of black holes (pg 434).



I did not realize this.  More stuff that I need to meditate on!

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 17, 2011 - 8:49PM #9
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Oct 17, 2011 -- 4:00PM, mindis1 wrote:


 Had it not been for Baez’s explanation of Hawking’s explanation, I would have been completely lost in space. Now I’m only partly lost in space.




Without looking at the book again, here's what I recall. Right now, even in the coldest depths of space, black holes do not radiate because of the temperature differential, space is still hotter than a black hole. But in the distant future when space expansion and entropy and time has "killed" all the stars, when space reaches close to absolute zero, black holes will begin to radiate. (I'll check this later and make corrections if necessary).


sdp  

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 21, 2011 - 5:41PM #10
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Correcting errors..........


Oct 8, 2011 -- 4:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Some years ago Mario started a thread on S & R, God's foreknowledge in incompatible with man's free will. Adelphe was of the opinion that God does indeed have complete foreknowledge of all people and events, but this does not in any manner preclude man's free will.

A couple of weeks ago I finished The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind, 2008. The book is about this war which lasted over 20 years. Hawking was of the opinion that information, having once entered a black hole, was forever lost. Susskind (with Gerard 't Hooft) was of the opinion that this disastrous for physics.

Susskind eventually solved the problem, and Hawking eventually admitted that Leonard was right.

Along the way to solving the problem, Susskind saw that two incompatible views concerning black hole physics, were both correct. If an outside observer from a safe distance, sees someone cross the event horizon of a black hole, they are, zip-zap, forever lost  begin to slow down as they approach the event horizon, eventually upon reaching the event horizon, they come to a standstill as if frozen in time. However, the person who crosses the event horizon doesn't notice anything unusual, just goes about their merry old way gets squashed by gravity (I had the two versions backwards). 

Susskind puzzled over this for years, but eventually saw that both versions were correct, from their perspective (applying Bohr's principle of complementarity).

If we apply Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, we can see how both can be right. One view is like that of the person watching from a safe distance, who sees the person crossing the event horizon and disappearing. The other view view is like the person who crosses the event horizon and does not notice anything out of the ordinary.

Gotta go, library cutting me off.......

tbc

stardustpilgrim




Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook