I've learned a lot from Klee Irwin, of Quantum Gravity Research, who sees the universe in terms of information, and believes consciousness may be structured like a language.
I'm interested in the idea that you can't store information inside a volume of space, only on its surface area (also known as the holographic principle).
I see the black hole boundary as the repository for the information, the language, the "story" if you will of the universe. The complete story (past, present, and future) is there.
The black hole is a 2D boundary. True, it curves, which means it can appear to be 3D—if the degree of curvature of the observer is different from that of the black hole itself. If they are in a 1:1 relationship, it will appear not to curve. (This difference in the perception of curved lines lies at the heart of difficulties with perception, in my opinion, and is important to both our health and our understanding of the cosmos.)
In looking at time, I ask: What if black hole is the end from which we start? On/in it is stored all the information, the whole story—the entire song, if you will. But the song can play at different speeds.
The denser the observer (the farther "backward" in time), the faster the speed.
The black hole boundary is the starting position. As when drawing back a sling, we can only pull the boundary back so far.
There are "eight degrees of density" possible before maximum density—a new singularity—is reached.
So, just to be clear, when I speak of the Simulation Hypothesis, I am not referring to alien supercomputers (another notion that makes me laugh). I am referring to a story that has been told, and is being told, and will be told again. The human story is eternal—and iterative. Every black hole is a new universe ...
https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe
... but it's always the same story. And so, in a sense, this is a simulation. We are always somewhere "in the middle" of a story whose beginning and ending—duplicate black holes—already exist.
This is a shift in thinking equal in magnitude to that of the Copernican Revolution, so, as I mentioned, I am not surprised, offended, or dissuaded by pushback. In fact, I am deeply grateful to anyone who takes the time to read anything I say. I am a layperson, and I sometimes use terms in ways that are not in perfect alignment with their traditional use. But I hope the big picture comes across—or will someday.
