Is our universe a black hole?

[Philosophy Explorer]

One of my physics college texts theorized that can be the case. If true this suggests we're actually part of a multiverse.

There's a torsion theory that, among other things, helps to account for the theoretical dark energy. Here is an article that proposes our universe is a black hole or inside of one:

http://www.insidescience.org/content/ev ... iverse/566

PhilX

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Hmm would the physics of the universe outside the black hole be different than ours?

[hammock]

. . . Here is an article that proposes our universe is a black hole or inside of one: http://www.insidescience.org/content/ev ... iverse/566

There's no end to the speculative concoctions of physics derived from mathematics. Which may self-iterate on and on to higher/lower substrates or nest inside each other like Russian dolls. Which is to say, the significance of such hypotheses at least rests in making another contribution to the validation of that characteristic which has been ascribed to a theoretical process that targets nature. This being the progress of a kind of "internal metaphysics" about the reality presented in experience (the natural / phenomenal world). As opposed to the ancient tradition of seeking the ultimate, terminating conditions that could make the former possible, which Kant considered a futile or misguided direction for reason / understanding. ["Internal" here or inner not to be conflated with occasional, and thus potentially confusing references to the quite different area of things in themselves or those latter supersensible affairs; Kant's quote features both instances together below.]

In mathematics and natural science the human Reason recognises indeed limits but no boundaries, i.e., [it recognises] that something exists outside itself, to which it can never attain, but not that it can itself be anywhere terminated in its inner progress. The extension of our views in mathematics and the possibility of new inventions reaches to infinity; and the same can be said of the discovery of new qualities in Nature, and of new forces and laws, through continued experience and the union of the same by the Reason. But, at the same time, it cannot be mistaken that there are limits here, for mathematics refers only to phenomena, and what cannot be an object of sensuous intuition [...] lies wholly outside its sphere, [in a region] to which it can never lead, and which does not at all require it. There is, then, a continuous progress [...] Natural science will never discover for us the inner [nature] of things, namely, that which is not phenomenon, but which can still serve as the highest ground of the explanation of phenomena. But it does not require this for its physical explanations; nay, if such were offered it from another source (e.g., the influence of immaterial beings), it ought to reject it, and on no account to bring it into the course of its explanations, but invariably to base these on that which pertains to experience as object of sense, and which can be brought into connection with our real perceptions, and empirical laws [via experiment or test]. [PTAFM]

I believe that scientific knowledge has fractal properties; that no matter how much we learn; whatever is left, however small it may seem, is just as infinitely complex as the whole was to start with. That, I think, is the secret of the Universe. [I, Asimov: A Memoir]