"There is a CREATOR's Aim in This Universe" ft. Roger Penrose

If you feel like you're experiencing déjà vu, you're partly correct. This video is a revised version of our previous upload on the same topic. We've refined and improved certain segments of the storyline.

The endless pursuit for meaning and In the end we're still left scratching our heads. Is it this or is it that? Someone somewhere must surely be enjoying the show.

Here is how I think Roger's transition from one universe to another works: Entropy is commonly taken to be order proceeding to disorder, which is adequate for this explanation. As the Universe expands, energy becomes more and more randomly distributed, stars die out and there is less and less concentrations of gas in quantities to form new stars. Far enough in the future and the expansion will tear apart all matter, right down to the atoms, and at that point there is nothing but radiation in the Universe. Once this is the case, the nature of radiation becomes the point Roger is trying to make: radiation is photons, and travels at the speed of light, in which case there is no longer time (in a relative universe radiation does not experience time, and so a universe of pure radiation is effectively static as nothing can change without time). Without time, there is also no "space", which is to say distance; remember, radiation does not experience any "crossing" of space because from its point of view that crossing is instantaneous. With no distance, everything in the Universe is once again all in the same spot; distance has disappeared and all the energy in the Universe is back together again. No particles have to "travel" anywhere for this to be the case. Nor is a singularity necessary, as "size" has also lost all meaning. What's more, because its distribution is/was completely uniform throughout the cosmos--or at least it is now because it's all in one place, entropy is back where it began, with everything uniform (in order). At this point, if it is not obvious, all the "laws of physics" are no longer applicable, if they can still be said to exist at all. If it were totally uniform, then probably there would be no Big Bang because there are no longer laws of physics to cause it to happen. But if there is any imbalance, any non-conformities within the energy distribution--which I think Roger has intimated might be caused by the last explosions of the last black holes creating gravity waves that last into the radiation era--then because of these imbalances the laws of physics re-emerge, with space, time, distance and size coming back into play, and this causes the Big Bang. The one thing that carries over from universe to universe is energy (whatever that is). The laws of physics are based around this, and so the argument that there is some "probability" about how the Universe may behave after the Big Bang may be moot. Every universe may begin with the same impetus and have the same constants, and so be essentially identical to our current iteration. On the other hand, maybe only 1 in a million is like ours, but obviously if there is going to be life "as we know it", it has to be like this, and so here we are (although it could be a universe more amenable to life than this one). It doesn't really matter, because the "probability" argument is an argument from incredulity, and we have only the one data point of this universe to speculate from, so the argument is without merit. The video is right to say that we can't rule out a creator, but it's a nonsense statement, and just as nonsensical to say we can rule one in. It's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with science or physics, and it's a discourtesy to try to drag a physicist into such a discussion--props to the video for eventually quoting his views correctly, though. Frankly, however, whether a scientist believes there is an intelligent designer or not is immaterial (sorry), as this too has nothing to do with the science, and never should.

Not sure why a "recycling" universe is such a weird idea. Literally everything IN the universe seems to recycle itself.

The late Halton C. Arp pointed out there were problems with the Doppler effect, he found there were stars in galaxies that were older than the galaxies. The expansion of the Universe must be some sort of illusion.

Maybe we will get sucked into a black hole, where everything gets so compressed it explodes and it all starts again?

Just because we can explain how a loaf of bread is made, does not negate the need for a Baker!

Infinite intelligence existing within the so-called first intelligence existing as far as we know🤔 simultaneously evolving‼️👀 co-evolution🙏🏿

He's idealizing. When speaking ontologically, Penrose becomes far more idealist/occasionalist. Roger Penrose (Nobel Prize for Black Hole Information) ‘. . . PARTICLES DO NOT EVEN MOVE, BEING REPRESENTED BY “STATIC” CURVES DRAWN IN SPACE–TIME’. Thus what we perceive as moving 3D objects are really successive cross-sections of immobile 4D objects past which our field of observation is sweeping.”

Edwin Hubble did not discover an expanding Universe he only took cred for it. George Lemaitre first hypothesized it and Hubble later confirmed it. Ironically, given the title of this piece, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.

This is an interesting video, but it is totally spoiled by its deceptive heading 'There is an Eternal God who Began All of This' ft. Roger Penrose. The quote was actual from Steven Meyer a Christian/Intelligent Design , some might say pseudoscientist, not Penrose who specifically denies the existence of God.

To my limited yet observant mind, Roger Penrose is the luckiest guy ever. He got effectively a second (or third) life, where he gets to imagine things to his heart's content, has followers in droves, is a social media star and is having basically the time of his life at age 85+ - he is especially lucky to have a fully working brain at this late stage along with good general health. He is no longer having to battle the Publish or perish plague of academia, or having to justify everything with infinitely complex mathematical derivations. Frankly, he must have done something right in a previous life to have been so lucky in this one. Frankly, I can almost see him smirking sometimes enjoying a secret delight. That while his contemporaries, if not gone already, are just barely hanging in there, tubes coming out of everywhere, captive to nurses, who, if they are lucky are caring enough to listen to their occasional rumblings. OTOH, I am not sure we are quite so lucky as we are exposed to this brand of the ageing theoretical Physicist. I dread a world in which there will be many more of them (Imagining some aging ex String Theorist and shivering with apprehension). Yet, even I say thing, I did listen to the video and found it fun. Universes begetting universes, I mean, why not? it's possible. may be even there's mathematics behind it. There's after all, mathematics for almost anything. we are THAT imaginative as a mathematical species (OK, that's Wolfram and bret Weinstein territory, but never mind). PS off to work some more on my very own, highly imaginative Simulation Theory. the beauty of which is that it begets several singularities like Roger penrose in evry "generation".

When sir roger penrose speaks the science community listens 👌💯

Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience. However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world. This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective. For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action. Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment. The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience. Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.

Roger Penrose is right. The moment he says 'creator', the masses jump to an anthropomorphic creator. This is the fatal flaw that institutionalized religions have committed and promoted, with each one having his/her favourite god, which is a projected image of their cultures. It is so ingrained in our brains we keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Facebook woyld not let me share this link. Curious!

I appreciate this a lot. Being critical is no small thing in holding companies like this accountable

If God did all this. The next question is 'why'?

It is entirely possible that the Penrose CCC is a single aeon that loops!

This was fascinating i got hit upset the head and had to laugh at myself when ALL the zeros was explained then Roger broke it down absolutely thoroughly. This totally made sense and showed me why im so weird! (And quite smart to the point i forget things) .... oh my. So much aligns with future, present, and past. Interesting. I received an A- on my paper in my Senior year which i wrote and described a rose and titled as such 'The Rose' by Lisa Bordeaux in 1990 -91.All the more reasons i can agree with predictability and in some fashion of remote views as well?! Of course I struggle more on conversing things. The give and take applies in definite reality. Will explain farther, with help, if need be. I encourage collaboration.