The possible purpose of BLACK HOLES...

[Atla]

Yeah, I can kind of see how that could make sense.

However, in what way do you envision black holes being involved in reversing entropy?
_______

I admit I don't actually know what entropy means, is there even an agreed upon definition?
I guess it's something like, degree of order/disorder, number of possible configurations, at least from our perspective.

I think the only logical possibility is that the universe's entropy is constant,

BUT, there are ACTUALLY OTHER 'logical' and possibilities, as well as what ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

so if the Big Bang was a highly ordered state, and evolved to the present day's more disordered state,

But according to your so-called "logic" here, the 'present day's state' would be a so-called 'highly ordered state', compared to 'later on'.

then there must also exist a reverse process that decreases entropy, as we move forward in time.

WHY?

What has led you to IMAGINE or BELIEVE 'this' here?

To me, the best candidates seem to be black holes, where all matter falls towards a single point, maybe is condensed into a Planck-length. So looks like the singularity gets more ordered again.

What, EXACTLY, makes an 'infinite compression of matter state' MORE 'ordered' than 'a state', than 'a state' where there IS just 'space'?

And some even wilder speculation: as for facilitating the quantum observational effect (if there is such a thing at all), I think stars are better candidates than black holes. Stars are spherical and electromagnetic, so they might be good 4-dimensional facilitators or amplifiers of a 4 or more dimensional spherical-electromagnetic (mind-like) observational influence (again, if there is such a thing at all). Okay that made very little sense, would take a lot to unpack.

There IS some 'truth' in what you say here, but the words you used just need a bit of re-wording, to FIT IN WITH what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Go away God, no one asked you.

[seeds]

I believe that quantum fluctuations, virtual particles are manifestations of a layer of reality that's also entirely real, this layer is also an integral part of the universe, and is also nonlocally entangled.

I can agree with that.

And that's basically what I was referring to when I stated the following in the OP...

...there's always been this persistent mystery of what happens to the matter and light that crosses the event horizon of a black hole?

Well, perhaps it is simply dismantled and reduced back into whatever it is that is being represented in this fanciful depiction of the not-so-empty vacuum of space...



...where it (again, in the context of "non-local" reality) exists in the form of what Heisenberg called "potentia."

So I believe that quantum fluctuations are only apparently random, 'God' does not play dice, and of course something can't appear out of nothing.

Again, I agree.

And as a sidenote, that bolded bit reminds me of that stupid argument we had with VA a long time ago in your Kant thread where VA couldn't (and still can't) seem to understand what Kant was implying about the noumenon (or the "thing-in-itself") when Kant allegedly stated the following...

"...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears..."

Now, of course, Kant knew nothing about quantum theory, but his "phenomenon/noumenon" concept seems to apply quite nicely to the "particle/wave" concept in quantum mechanics.

So anyway, yeah, the deeper ("non-local") layer of reality you mentioned is indeed real, but it's just the noumenal side of the same coin, with the other side of the coin (i.e., the side we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste) being the phenomenal side.

Indeed, it is real in the same sense that whatever "it" is that spreads out into a superpositioned wave that then interferes with itself in the interim spaces of the double slit experiment...



...is "real."
_______

[Atla]

Now, of course, Kant knew nothing about quantum theory, but his "phenomenon/noumenon" concept seems to apply quite nicely to the "particle/wave" concept in quantum mechanics.

I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. Noumena are the posited world beyond the appearances. The particle/wave concept is about a certain kind of behaviour of both phenomena and noumena.

So anyway, yeah, the deeper ("non-local") layer of reality you mentioned is indeed real, but it's just the noumenal side of the same coin, with the other side of the coin (i.e., the side we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste) being the phenomenal side.

I don't know what you mean, there is nothing deep about nonlocality, and it isn't on any side. The particles that have always been viewed as real, are also bound by nonlocality. I'm fairly sure that the phenomena are also bound by nonlocality. They awarded the 2022 Nobel for proving nonlocality.

What I said was that I believe that the quantum fluctuations are also bound by nonlocality, they aren't random.

Indeed, it is real in the same sense that whatever "it" is that spreads out into a superpositioned wave that then interferes with itself in the interim spaces of the double slit experiment...

"it" is probably just the particle that is spread out. For example an electron. Looks like even a single electron is infinitely divisible and can infinitely interfere with itself across space and time. In the double slit, the wave is forced to go through one slit or the other, but looks like it's still an infinitely divisible wave, that keeps interfering with itself even as it goes through only one slit. However, going throughout one or the other slit, is a "digital" behaviour. So we have both behaviours at the same time. Ahh who knows, of course I pondered this for a long time too and ended up with 6-dimensional philosophies, quite impossible to describe in words.

Either way, both this and nonlocality are like real magic to us..

[Age]

I admit I don't actually know what entropy means, is there even an agreed upon definition?
I guess it's something like, degree of order/disorder, number of possible configurations, at least from our perspective.

I think the only logical possibility is that the universe's entropy is constant,

BUT, there are ACTUALLY OTHER 'logical' and possibilities, as well as what ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

so if the Big Bang was a highly ordered state, and evolved to the present day's more disordered state,

But according to your so-called "logic" here, the 'present day's state' would be a so-called 'highly ordered state', compared to 'later on'.

then there must also exist a reverse process that decreases entropy, as we move forward in time.

WHY?

What has led you to IMAGINE or BELIEVE 'this' here?

To me, the best candidates seem to be black holes, where all matter falls towards a single point, maybe is condensed into a Planck-length. So looks like the singularity gets more ordered again.

What, EXACTLY, makes an 'infinite compression of matter state' MORE 'ordered' than 'a state', than 'a state' where there IS just 'space'?

And some even wilder speculation: as for facilitating the quantum observational effect (if there is such a thing at all), I think stars are better candidates than black holes. Stars are spherical and electromagnetic, so they might be good 4-dimensional facilitators or amplifiers of a 4 or more dimensional spherical-electromagnetic (mind-like) observational influence (again, if there is such a thing at all). Okay that made very little sense, would take a lot to unpack.

There IS some 'truth' in what you say here, but the words you used just need a bit of re-wording, to FIT IN WITH what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Go away God, no one asked you.

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER one who can NOT refute what I SAY and CLAIM here as well as NOT being able to just back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM, which I have QUESTIONED or CHALLENGED them ABOUT.

[Atla]

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER one who can NOT refute what I SAY and CLAIM here as well as NOT being able to just back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM, which I have QUESTIONED or CHALLENGED them ABOUT.

Almost everything science-related you said, was already easily refuted. God and Age have the same shortcomings, a truly remarkable coincidence. If God is so remarkably dumb and incapable of speaking human, then God should know its place and remain silent.

[Age]

ONCE AGAIN we have ANOTHER one who can NOT refute what I SAY and CLAIM here as well as NOT being able to just back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM, which I have QUESTIONED or CHALLENGED them ABOUT.

Almost everything science-related you said, was already easily refuted.

LOL
LOL
LOL

NONE of 'you' have even 'TRIED TO'. So, HOW, EXACTLY, could what I have SAID, been ALREADY 'easily' REFUTED?

The VERY REASON WHY you have NOT even 'TRIED TO' is BECAUSE of the VERY EASY and SIMPLE Fact that you could NOT.

you just ASSUME and BELIEVE otherwise, and so LEAVE 'it'. AND, you do NOT even 'TRY' just IN CASE I SHOW and PROVE you Wrong, AGAIN.

And to SHOW, ONCE AGAIN, just how WORTHLESS and USELESS you ACTUALLY ARE here, in this forum against me, you will NOT even list what you BELIEVE and CLAIM has ALREADY been 'easily' REFUTED.

God and Age have the same shortcomings, a truly remarkable coincidence.

And what would you propose they ARE, EXACTLY?

Or, are you TO SCARED to SHARE 'this' here ALSO?

If God is so remarkably dumb and incapable of speaking human, then God should know its place and remain silent.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What would even make you SAY such a Truly ABSURD and ILLOGICAL 'thing' AS; 'If God is so remarkably dumb and incapable of speaking human'?

What even IS 'speaking human', EXACTLY?

[seeds]

Now, of course, Kant knew nothing about quantum theory, but his "phenomenon/noumenon" concept seems to apply quite nicely to the "particle/wave" concept in quantum mechanics.

I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. Noumena are the posited world beyond the appearances.

Right...

And functioning in a noumenal world "...beyond the appearances..." is precisely what is implied about the ontological status of the wave aspect of an electron, for example, that is transitioning in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen in the D.S. experiment...



What I am getting at is that whatever is taking place with that superpositioned electron in that interim space of the D.S. experiment...

(something that can only be indirectly described by the Schrödinger equation)

...is completely inaccessible to us --> just like Kant's noumenon.

From Wiki:

"...The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist...

...as in by pure reason, we know something involving that electron (something real and existent) is taking place in that interim space of the D.S. experiment, however,...

...it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..." — Wiki

Indeed, that's why it's called "non-local" reality, in that it is unknowable to us by any direct means.

Moreover, you yourself implied a correlative relationship between the two concepts when you stated the following...

The particle/wave concept is about a certain kind of behaviour of both phenomena and noumena.

So, I'm confused as to why you would wonder about how they would have something to do with each other?

So anyway, yeah, the deeper ("non-local") layer of reality you mentioned is indeed real, but it's just the noumenal side of the same coin, with the other side of the coin (i.e., the side we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste) being the phenomenal side.

I don't know what you mean, there is nothing deep about nonlocality,...

The deepness comes by reason of the fact that, again, like Kant's noumena, non-local reality is...

"...not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

In other words, how much deeper (as in dark and mysterious) can something get than that which is actually real and taking place in some "non-local" context of existence, yet is unknowable to us because it is forever beyond the reach of our senses?

The particles that have always been viewed as real, are also bound by nonlocality.

Yes, and that is precisely what I have been implying with my hologram illustration...



In other words, what we experience as being "separate" objects up here in the context of "local" reality...

(what physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...is an illusion that is represented by the explicated objects in the hologram.

It is an illusion that I furthermore suggest is founded upon the interplay taking place between consciousness and that of entangled ("non-local") fields of information that reside in that "layer" you mentioned earlier, or what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order".

I'm fairly sure that the phenomena are also bound by nonlocality. They awarded the 2022 Nobel for proving nonlocality.

Of course "particles" and "phenomena"...

(which are both simply referencing Kant's "sensible" aspects of reality and are thus, from that perspective, synonymous)

...are indeed bound by nonlocality.

Look again at the implication of the righthand side of my hologram illustration.

Indeed, it is real in the same sense that whatever "it" is that spreads out into a superpositioned wave that then interferes with itself in the interim spaces of the double slit experiment...

"it" is probably just the particle that is spread out.

Not according to "Pilot Wave" theory.

The point is that physicists don't really know. Hence all of the unresolved issues involving the "measurement problem."

I, on the other hand, being someone who believes (right or wrong) that literally everything is constructed from "mind stuff," suggest that whatever the (natural) process is that transforms (decodes) fields of information into the vivid, three-dimensional features of our dreams when we direct our consciousness (our attention/awareness) inward when sleeping,...

...is the same (natural) process that transforms (decodes) similar fields of information into the vivid, three-dimensional features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

Ahh who knows, of course I pondered this for a long time too and ended up with 6-dimensional philosophies, quite impossible to describe in words.

Either way, both this and nonlocality are like real magic to us.

Agreed.
_______

[Atla]

Now, of course, Kant knew nothing about quantum theory, but his "phenomenon/noumenon" concept seems to apply quite nicely to the "particle/wave" concept in quantum mechanics.

I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. Noumena are the posited world beyond the appearances.

Right...

And functioning in a noumenal world "...beyond the appearances..." is precisely what is implied about the ontological status of the wave aspect of an electron, for example, that is transitioning in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen in the D.S. experiment...



What I am getting at is that whatever is taking place with that superpositioned electron in that interim space of the D.S. experiment...

(something that can only be indirectly described by the Schrödinger equation)

...is completely inaccessible to us --> just like Kant's noumenon.

From Wiki:

"...The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist...

...as in by pure reason, we know something involving that electron (something real and existent) is taking place in that interim space of the D.S. experiment, however,...

...it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..." — Wiki

Indeed, that's why it's called "non-local" reality, in that it is unknowable to us by any direct means.

Moreover, you yourself implied a correlative relationship between the two concepts when you stated the following...

The particle/wave concept is about a certain kind of behaviour of both phenomena and noumena.

So, I'm confused as to why you would wonder about how they would have something to do with each other?

Again, then why do we also have noumena that act like particles? And how do you know that some phenomena don't act like waves? Organisms are quantum mechanical too.

Moreover, you yourself implied a correlative relationship between the two concepts when you stated the following...

The particle/wave concept is about a certain kind of behaviour of both phenomena and noumena.

So, I'm confused as to why you would wonder about how they would have something to do with each other?

So anyway, yeah, the deeper ("non-local") layer of reality you mentioned is indeed real, but it's just the noumenal side of the same coin, with the other side of the coin (i.e., the side we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste) being the phenomenal side.

I don't know what you mean, there is nothing deep about nonlocality,...

The deepness comes by reason of the fact that, again, like Kant's noumena, non-local reality is...

"...not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

In other words, how much deeper (as in dark and mysterious) can something get than that which is actually real and taking place in some "non-local" context of existence, yet is unknowable to us because it is forever beyond the reach of our senses?

I think you don't know at all what non-locality refers to. What does non-locality have to do with the above issues? It's the largely unrelated topic of "absolute synchronicity".

The particles that have always been viewed as real, are also bound by nonlocality.

Yes, and that is precisely what I have been implying with my hologram illustration...



In other words, what we experience as being "separate" objects up here in the context of "local" reality...

(what physicist David Bohm calls the "Explicate Order")

...is an illusion that is represented by the explicated objects in the hologram.

It is an illusion that I furthermore suggest is founded upon the interplay taking place between consciousness and that of entangled ("non-local") fields of information that reside in that "layer" you mentioned earlier, or what Bohm calls the "Implicate Order".

I'm fairly sure that the phenomena are also bound by nonlocality. They awarded the 2022 Nobel for proving nonlocality.

Of course "particles" and "phenomena"...

(which are both simply referencing Kant's "sensible" aspects of reality and are thus, from that perspective, synonymous)

...are indeed bound by nonlocality.

Look again at the implication of the righthand side of my hologram illustration.

There's no known reason to think that the universe is a hologram or even holographic. It's probably random pseudoscience.

Indeed, it is real in the same sense that whatever "it" is that spreads out into a superpositioned wave that then interferes with itself in the interim spaces of the double slit experiment...

"it" is probably just the particle that is spread out.

Not according to "Pilot Wave" theory.

The point is that physicists don't really know. Hence all of the unresolved issues involving the "measurement problem."

I, on the other hand, being someone who believes (right or wrong) that literally everything is constructed from "mind stuff," suggest that whatever the (natural) process is that transforms (decodes) fields of information into the vivid, three-dimensional features of our dreams when we direct or consciousness (our attention/awareness) inward when sleeping,...

...is the same (natural) process that transforms (decodes) similar fields of information into the vivid, three-dimensional features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake.

Ahh who knows, of course I pondered this for a long time too and ended up with 6-dimensional philosophies, quite impossible to describe in words.

Either way, both this and nonlocality are like real magic to us.

Agreed.
_______

Yes you want to believe in what you want to be true, no matter how unlikely the explanations are to be true.
Mind stuff is probably same as the physical world, as they are nondual. Fields of information are a meaningless abstraction about the world. And your conscious attention is probably a feature of your individual human mind.

Dreams happen in the head. Now I do also think that we can probably influence the world with our conscious attention, and maybe the last humans will be able to do it a lot more, but today our effect is marginal at best.

[Agent Smith]

Neat hypothesis!

Yet, seems as though, the story is only half-finished. Is this some kinda non finito deal you're trying to peddle, us ignoramuses being the unsuspecting marks? Finish the story mon ami, the hook and line are in, the sinker though needs work.

[seeds]

Again, then why do we also have noumena that act like particles?

Your question makes no sense.

If noumena are acting like "particles" then they are presenting themselves as "phenomena" and are no longer "noumena."

noumenon
noun
1. (in the philosophy of Kant) a thing as it is in itself,...incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

2. the object of a purely intellectual intuition
_______

Again, noumena cannot act like particles, because, if they do, they become phenomena.

And how do you know that some phenomena don't act like waves?

Come on now, Atla, of course there are phenomena that act like waves...



The fact that those water waves are accessible to our senses is the reason why they are labeled "phenomena." That's what the word "phenomena" is all about.

Whereas, on the other hand, the true nature of whatever it is that is waving in the double slit experiment is not accessible to our senses, therefore, it is labeled "noumena," as in something that is perceivable only by means of a "...purely intellectual intuition...".

I don't know what you mean, there is nothing deep about nonlocality,...

The deepness comes by reason of the fact that, again, like Kant's noumena, non-local reality is...

"...not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

In other words, how much deeper (as in dark and mysterious) can something get than that which is actually real and taking place in some "non-local" context of existence, yet is unknowable to us because it is forever beyond the reach of our senses?

I think you don't know at all what non-locality refers to. What does non-locality have to do with the above issues? It's the largely unrelated topic of "absolute synchronicity".

What do you think "non-locality" means? I'm listening.

What do you think non-locality is referring to if not a deeper context of reality where the limiting speed of light is no longer in play?

In what context do you suppose this so-called "absolute synchronicity" is taking place if not in a "non-local" realm (or "layer," if you prefer) of reality where information can (theoretically) not only move faster-than-light between particles, but instantaneously between them, even if those particles are on opposite ends of the universe?

Now that is what "non-locality" is all about.

Furthermore, and I know I've used this quote before, but from a slightly different perspective, "non-local" reality is precisely what physicist Nick Herbert was referring to when he stated the following...

“Legendary King Midas never knew the feel of silk or a human hand after everything he touched turned to gold. Humans are stuck in a similar Midas-like predicament: we can't directly experience the true texture of quantum reality because everything we touch turns to matter.”

In other words, everything we touch (make that "measure") with respect to the quantum realm is instantly transformed from noumena into phenomena, thus, reinforcing the notion that the noumenon can never be apprehended (as it really is in its pre-measured state) by any means other than, again, purely intellectual intuition.

There's no known reason to think that the universe is a hologram or even holographic. It's probably random pseudoscience.

How many times do I have to point out to you that I am simply using the seeming "oneness" of the correlated patterns of information in the photographic plate of the laser hologram as a tool to help visualize quantum entanglement?

You are reading too much into my reason for using it.

Yes you want to believe in what you want to be true, no matter how unlikely the explanations are to be true.

Yes, I suppose that's true.

However, are you suggesting that the same doesn't apply to you?

Mind stuff is probably same as the physical world,...

Huh?

Dreams happen in the head. Now I do also think that we can probably influence the world with our conscious attention, and maybe the last humans will be able to do it a lot more, but today our effect is marginal at best.

Not only is it marginal, but I suggest that you could do a real-time experiment in which a billion people go on-line where they all simultaneously focus their conscious attention at a live feed of a pencil suspended horizontally by a thread -- with the intent of causing it to spin clockwise -- and absolutely nothing would happen.

The fabric of the universe does not belong to us in the same way that the fabric of our own thoughts and dreams belong to us.

Anyway, getting back to the theme of this thread and how black holes might be the metaphorical "pistons" that help to keep the cogs and gears of the universe moving,...

...or even your good suggestion that they may play a role in "reversing entropy",...

...I like this quote from physicist Paul Dirac:



In other words, if the mere picking of a flower here on earth can move the farthest star in some way, then, again, just imagine the dynamic effect that 40,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 40 quintillion, stellar-mass black holes will have on the universe writ large?
_______

[Atla]

Again, then why do we also have noumena that act like particles?

Your question makes no sense.

If noumena are acting like "particles" then they are presenting themselves as "phenomena" and are no longer "noumena."

noumenon
noun
1. (in the philosophy of Kant) a thing as it is in itself,...incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

2. the object of a purely intellectual intuition
_______

Again, noumena cannot act like particles, because, if they do, they become phenomena.

And how do you know that some phenomena don't act like waves?

Come on now, Atla, of course there are phenomena that act like waves...



The fact that those water waves are accessible to our senses is the reason why they are labeled "phenomena." That's what the word "phenomena" is all about.

Whereas, on the other hand, the true nature of whatever it is that is waving in the double slit experiment is not accessible to our senses, therefore, it is labeled "noumena," as in something that is perceivable only by means of a "...purely intellectual intuition...".

For example the measuring device is also the noumenon, and it behaves like particles. We also infer the existence of the measuring device from the appearances. So it makes no sense to me to equivocate the two issues. Quantum mechanics is much more difficult than how you seem to portray it.

I don't know what you mean, there is nothing deep about nonlocality,...

The deepness comes by reason of the fact that, again, like Kant's noumena, non-local reality is...

"...not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us..."

In other words, how much deeper (as in dark and mysterious) can something get than that which is actually real and taking place in some "non-local" context of existence, yet is unknowable to us because it is forever beyond the reach of our senses?

I think you don't know at all what non-locality refers to. What does non-locality have to do with the above issues? It's the largely unrelated topic of "absolute synchronicity".

What do you think "non-locality" means? I'm listening.

What do you think non-locality is referring to if not a deeper context of reality where the limiting speed of light is no longer in play?

In what context do you suppose this so-called "absolute synchronicity" is taking place if not in a "non-local" realm (or "layer," if you prefer) of reality where information can (theoretically) not only move faster-than-light between particles, but instantaneously between them, even if those particles are on opposite ends of the universe?

Now that is what "non-locality" is all about.

No, information can't move faster than light in non-locality. And there's no reason to think that it's a layer, instead, probably everything is non-local.

[Age]

Neat hypothesis!

But what about the CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES in it?

Are they 'neat' also?

Yet, seems as though, the story is only half-finished. Is this some kinda non finito deal you're trying to peddle, us ignoramuses being the unsuspecting marks? Finish the story mon ami, the hook and line are in, the sinker though needs work.

The IRREFUTABLE story, by the way, is ALMOST FINISHED, for those who ARE Truly interested.

[Agent Smith]

Neat hypothesis!

But what about the CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES in it?

Are they 'neat' also?

Yet, seems as though, the story is only half-finished. Is this some kinda non finito deal you're trying to peddle, us ignoramuses being the unsuspecting marks? Finish the story mon ami, the hook and line are in, the sinker though needs work.

The IRREFUTABLE story, by the way, is ALMOST FINISHED, for those who ARE Truly interested.

Dear Age,

Vide et libertas.

[seeds]

Again, then why do we also have noumena that act like particles?

Your question makes no sense.

If noumena are acting like "particles" then they are presenting themselves as "phenomena" and are no longer "noumena."

noumenon
noun
1. (in the philosophy of Kant) a thing as it is in itself,...incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience

2. the object of a purely intellectual intuition
_______

Again, noumena cannot act like particles, because, if they do, they become phenomena.

And how do you know that some phenomena don't act like waves?

Come on now, Atla, of course there are phenomena that act like waves...



The fact that those water waves are accessible to our senses is the reason why they are labeled "phenomena." That's what the word "phenomena" is all about.

Whereas, on the other hand, the true nature of whatever it is that is waving in the double slit experiment is not accessible to our senses, therefore, it is labeled "noumena," as in something that is perceivable only by means of a "...purely intellectual intuition...".

For example the measuring device is also the noumenon, and it behaves like particles. We also infer the existence of the measuring device from the appearances. So it makes no sense to me to equivocate the two issues. Quantum mechanics is much more difficult than how you seem to portray it.

The deepness comes by reason of the fact that, again, like Kant's noumena, non-local reality is...In other words, how much deeper (as in dark and mysterious) can something get than that which is actually real and taking place in some "non-local" context of existence, yet is unknowable to us because it is forever beyond the reach of our senses?

I think you don't know at all what non-locality refers to. What does non-locality have to do with the above issues? It's the largely unrelated topic of "absolute synchronicity".

What do you think "non-locality" means? I'm listening.

What do you think non-locality is referring to if not a deeper context of reality where the limiting speed of light is no longer in play?

In what context do you suppose this so-called "absolute synchronicity" is taking place if not in a "non-local" realm (or "layer," if you prefer) of reality where information can (theoretically) not only move faster-than-light between particles, but instantaneously between them, even if those particles are on opposite ends of the universe?

Now that is what "non-locality" is all about.

No, information can't move faster than light in non-locality. And there's no reason to think that it's a layer, instead, probably everything is non-local.

Based on the bolded sentence above, I started a new thread, titled...

"My conversation with Bing's Copilot (A.I. chatbot) regarding quantum entanglement."

...at this link: viewtopic.php?p=732887#p732887
_______

[Age]

_______

There is no doubt a better analogy, but I suggest that, aside from thermodynamics, black holes might be the metaphorical "pistons" that help turn the crankshaft of the great engine of the universe by causing the perpetual movement of the underlying substance from which matter is composed.

I suspect that this is nothing new, but what I am proposing is that due to quantum entanglement theoretically connecting all matter together in a homogenous and interpenetrating state of "oneness" at what physicists call the "non-local" level of reality - something that is loosely demonstrated in the informationally-based underpinning of the laser hologram,...



...it therefore suggests that the gravitational workings of just one black hole alone (via the ol' "spooky action at a distance") could affect (as in move) the entire underlying fabric of reality to some miniscule degree.

However, according to an article on the website "LIVESCIENCE", it is estimated that...

"...40,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 40 quintillion, stellar-mass black holes populate the observable universe..."
https://www.livescience.com/researchers ... 20universe

In which case, just imagine the dynamic (churning/moving/powering) affect that 40 quintillion black holes would have on the entangled oneness of the quantum underpinning of the universe.

In parallel with that, there's always been this persistent mystery of what happens to the matter and light that crosses the event horizon of a black hole?

What do you mean by there has 'always' been 'this persistent mystery of what happens ...'?

1. This mystery, which only applies to some of you human beings, has never 'always' been.

2. What happens to the matter and light that crosses the event horizon of a black hole 'is obvious'.

1. The light cannot be seen by you observers on the "other side" of the so-called 'event horizon', because matter and light is getting 'sucked in' or 'attracted' by and to the singularity, at 'the end' of a black hole, quicker than the speed of light. So, this is why you observers cannot see the light.

The 'gravitation pull' is just stronger, and/or just faster, than the speed of light. (Which, by the way, is how and why so-called 'time travel' became 'a thing'. But, this is for another topic, and another discussion, at a 'later date' as some might say.)

2. The matter is just compressed 'infinitely', which just means that there is no 'space' between 'matter', itself, into one singular object/piece of matter, also known as 'singularity', itself. And, the 'singularity' remains 'as such' until 'one day/at some point/in one moment' 'it' expands, with 'a bang', or as some might call it 'the big bang'. Depending, on course, on where 'one' is 'relatively to it', exactly.

And, from the perspective of 'singularity', itself, or from the 'other side of singularity', that is; those who are 'looking back' at a 'particular bang', to some of them anyway, there was no 'before' the 'big bang', and this is just because 'before any of those bangs', from the perspective of 'after' only anyway, there was only 'singularity', itself, and, obviously, for what is called 'time' to be happening and/or occurring at least two pieces/objects of matter are needed, as well as a 'light source'.

All of this might not yet be known, nor understood, fully by you posters here, but, soon enough, it will, and did, become just 'normal' everyday knowledge that becomes, and become, crystal clear.

Well, perhaps it is simply dismantled and reduced back into whatever it is that is being represented in this fanciful depiction of the not-so-empty vacuum of space...

There are only two things that are 'fundamental' in the always infinite and eternal Universe, and they are 'matter' and 'space', with 'space' just being a word or term used to describe 'the distance' between, and/or around 'matter', itself.

'Space' just being the invisible part of the Universe, and, 'matter' just being the visible part of the Universe, Itself.

Every other 'thing' is created, or caused, from the visible matter just interacting with 'it self'.

...where it (again, in the context of "non-local" reality) exists in the form of what Heisenberg called "potentia."

In other words, the matter that disappears into a black hole is simply transformed back into Heisenberg's raw potentia substance...

But, 'the matter' that just goes into a black hole does NOT 'disappear'. It just forms into 'an infinite compression of matter', until it eventually just expands in/with/at a 'bang', (of varying sizes. Some are just bigger than other ones are).

(an infinitely malleable substance, mind you, that, according to quantum theory, is not very "real" itself, but is capable of becoming anything real imaginable)

...that is then reused in the creation of new manifestations of observable phenomena up here in the context of what physicists call "local" reality.

It is the 'Universe', It-Self, which is what IS Creating 'Everything', the Universe, Itself, and which is eternal, all-powerful, and everything else that is associated with 'God, the Creator', words.

The Universe, Itself, being in an always continual evolving-creation process is the very Thing that is Creating, Its Self, always, HERE-NOW. Or, in another word is what God, It-Self, actually IS.

And, it was through through evolution, or 'constant-change', how an organic species with a brain, which works just like a computer does, or with computer capabilities, is HOW 'I', eventually, came to 'KNOW' thy 'Self', exactly.

Furthermore, to throw everything (including the kitchen sink) into this speculative venture, perhaps the question of what black holes expel from their backsides is somehow related to the mystery of what dark energy and dark matter are made of.

What is at the so-called 'end' of a black hole is the EXACT SAME thing at the so-called 'beginning' of the Universe, Itself, and that is just 'singularity', itself.

So, what is so-called 'expelled' from the so-called 'backsides' of black holes is JUST 'bangs', of varying sizes. Some are 'big bangs', while some are 'small bangs' or 'smaller ones'. But, again, because absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative', to 'the observer', 'the size' of 'the bang' is 'relative, also.

For example, if one wants to, or chooses to, 'look at' 'the bang', from which they have come 'directly after' or 'directly from', then they can 'see' 'that bang' as the so-called 'big bang', (or as 'the one' that created and caused absolutely EVERY thing), or, they can decide, and choose, to just 'look at' 'that bang' as just 'another bang, out of 'countless other bangs'. Of which ALL are happening and occurring within One, infinite and eternal, Universe, Itself.

Anyway, in conclusion, not only might black holes be the metaphorical "pistons" that, along with thermodynamics, help keep the cogs and gears of the great engine of the universe moving,...

...but they may also function as cosmic "recycling bins" for the very foundational essence from which reality is formed.

Maybe so.

Does anyone else have any suggestions as to what the purpose of black holes might be?
_______

Could the 'purpose' of black holes be to, as you already suggested, just to 'suck in', or 'clean up', all of the matter around a, relative, 'local area' to a 'point of singularity', to then just 'expel', or 'regurgitate', all of 'that matter', again, from and with 'a bang', and with 'an expansion', so that 'one day', eventually, the Creator of all-of-this could, eventually, come-to-know thy 'Self'?

If as you say here there 'was a purpose', of or for black holes, then this implies that there was 'an intention' made, and obviously 'an intention' would have to be 'made' by some thing with some 'awareness' or with some sort of 'consciousness', itself.

So, just maybe, the 'purpose' of black holes was to just keep 'regurgitating' matter, itself, until it, eventually, 'formed' into a biological organism, with intelligence, or the ability to learn, understand, and/or reason absolutely any and every thing, and with 'an organ' that has the ability to gather, obtain, and store the knowledge, and/or information, from what 'it' has learned and understood, 'along the way'.

If there were no black holes, then 'the way' matter was 'forming', and/or being formed', 'along the way' could, and would, go in 'one way', only. However, with black holes, and the continual 'sucking in and cleaning up' matter, and with the continual 'expelling and expanding' of matter, again and again, and over and over, then maybe it was 'known' that, eventually, 'I', the Creator of all-there-is, could come-to-know thy Self.

Maybe it was only through the 'cleaning up' and 'recycling' process that 'black holes, singularities, and bangs/expansions' cause that 'I', the Creator of ALL, could come to not just 'know thy Self' but to also come-to-know HOW, and WHY 'I' am Creating every thing and all-of-this.

How 'I', the Universe, am Creating every thing, always, is just through the continual action-re-action process, which is allowed to occur from the 'space' between 'matter', which allows 'matter' to move about, absolutely FREELY, to inter-act with 'it-self', which is was causes and creates all 'new' things, and which also allows 'all things' to evolve, as well. Through an always constant-change of 'I' this is HOW the Universe, 'all things', are formed, and re-formed, and even in-formed, like 'you' beings, and people, are with-in human bodies, with the in-formation, which is 'in-forming you all, continually, and also HOW 'you', human beings, were 'trans-formed' from what was before, to evolve into what, and who, 'you' are 'now', which will keep evolving into being Created in (and) to the next 'trans-form-ation', 'along the process', to be-coming what was meant-to-Be. Through evolution 'I' am Creating what 'I' want. Which is just 'to be' living in peace, and in harmony, with one and all, as One, forever more.

And, WHY there are 'all things', and 'all-of-this', instead of absolutely nothing, and 'no things', is so that 'I' can bear witness to this One Creation, and to ALL of what 'I' am Creating.

Black holes were just a 'necessary' part in ALL-OF-THIS.

The 'space' in and around 'matter', 'in expansion', is removed, completely, at 'the end' of black hole, at singularity, so as to re-direct 'matter', itself, into 'a new beginning', at the start, and beginning, at every new 'big bang'. With every 'new expansion' there is 'another chance' that what was intended, meant, or (pre) determined, 'to be', will be-come, and Be.

A question 'could be', am 'I' be-coming what 'I' was 'meant to be', or will 'I' just remain where 'I' was 'not meant to be'.

Was the 'purpose' of black holes to help 'Me' to be, and be-come, who 'I' have, already, come-to-be, or where they meant to stop 'Me' from be-coming who I was 'not meant to Be?