Born to do Math 129 - Do You Want Size With That?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner
July 22, 2019[Beginning of recorded material]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the limit to the possible sizes of the universe or other informational objects within the conceptual and physics traditional of digital physics in which all that exists reflects the objects, quantities, and dynamics of information?
Rick Rosner: The idea that there is no limit to the size of things, including the sizes of universes. We live in a finite universe. A large thing compared to things that we familiar with that aren’t the entire universe. The universe has 10^85th particles. Stars have 10^57th particles are something like that.
The universe is one million billion billionth the number of particles of the entire universe. So, it is kind of small. The Earth has like 10^50th particles or something. The human body has Avogadro’s number, so like 10^23rd particles or something.
So, we are a lot smaller. Even though, the universe seems fantastically big. It is. Under IC and the possible turtle stack of universes containing other universes, it seems like there is an idea that a universe can be any finite size, which a) seems obvious.
We live in a big universe. The rules of physics do not seem to preclude a smaller universe or a ibigger universe. Although, we do not know the rules of physics that preclude the size of a universe. There’s nothing saying a universe could not be a billion ties bigger.
That’s thing a), the universe can be bigger. Thing b) is the universe is the universe is rather self-balanced in terms of its gravitational energy. Although, there’s now the expanding universe, which has fucked with an open and a closed universe. It seems very closely balanced to having the amount of matter within it.
I guess, that includes dark matter and some other shit. It is precisely or exactly balanced being an open and a closed universe. That is, a universe that will keep on expanding forever, but just has enough energy it needs to do that.
If it even had a billionth less expansive energy, it would, at some point, run out expansive energy and then start collapsing into itself. IC doesn’t entirely believe that that’s by accident. It is more that it is a property of information.
However, the universe does seem to be precise in its dynamics. So, you could argue that, at some limit, larger than our universe it becomes impossible to have a universe or a stable universe that can expand uniformly, at least apparently uniformly, in a Big Bang way and have a bunch of local collapses and fold into itself like a big piece of paper.
Because it has a bunch of anomalies in the states or densities of matter. Assumption A is that you can any size universe. Question B, “Really? You can have a universe that is an octillion times bigger and still get the matter arranged in such a way that it doesn’t become unstable and just quickly unfold into itself.”
Part A is you can have any size universe with Part B as a retort of “really?” Anything short of infinity. We postulate that not only is any size universe possible. But if you’re cataloguing possible universes, the frequency with which different sized universes show up – I don’t know what “show up” means because we only live in one universe and only one universe showed up.
But if you are counting universes somehow, you can still get any sized universe because there may be a principle that says any sized universe can exist. But if the likelihood of that universe drops to zero, then it can’t exist. The principle that any sized universe can exist includes that there is a non-zero probability of any sized universe existing.
This leads to another weird infinity. If any sized universe out to infinity has a non-zero chance of existing, then that implies that there is an infinity of possible universes. Is that determining infinity? Or is it an infinity that seems okay? I have no idea. I don’t even know, as I said, what that means in terms of counting or making a zoo of universes. That’s pretty much the end of that whole deal.
American Television Writer
(Updated March 7, 2019)
According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the "World’s Smartest Man." The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named "Best Bouncer" in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He came in second or lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at firstname.lastname@example.org, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
(Updated September 28, 2016)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: email@example.com.
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
License and Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.