Jacob, I remember studying in astronomy class three theories relating to the expansion of the universe. It is proposed that the universe will either:

(1) Continue its expansion infinitely,

(2) Gradually stop expanding and simply sit tight,

(3) Expand to a critical point and then implode in on itself.

The first two theories are more popular among physicists and astronomers, because the third requires a good deal of unaccounted for mass if it is to occur. Proponents of the third theory, however, argue that there is sufficient evidence of so-called "black mass" to posit that there is indeed enough mass existing in the universe to cause the eventual implosion.

Drz, I have been working on this, mostly mentally, only now starting to write, to let ideas flow freely, allowing for the next ones to appear in turn. I was about to refer you to what I have reflected on the third alternative as the only acceptable one. The second one falls by itself, for the constant formation of black holes would impede a universe that sits tight. The first I have rejected, based on a necessarily limited amount of matter and energy. The kabbalistic belief in "creatio ex nihilum" has been subjected lately to speculations of ever growing quantities of matter. Sounds as absurd as the "perpetuum mobile."

The third alternative is the one I have adopted, as explained in some essays, based on at least two reasons. The most visible is the absurd of believing that suddenly, 15 billion years ago, the universe STARTED! I insisted that time cannot 'stop,' because there would be nothing acting, a requirement for any work; to start something, an act is required. Such thought simply agrees with my insistence in considering time as an abstraction, a dimension of energy.
Also, the constant formation of black holes is a "prima facie" evidence of the constant "crunch" of matter. It is not difficult to deduce that once a critical mass of BHs is present, the crunch will start.

But then, an eureka! And now I realized how pervasive is the concept of "umbilicus."... I was thinking of that word, as contrasted to "navel," when it became clear that I was CONDENSING Plato with Aristotle! (The process of "condensation" is referred to in PARODY AND DREAMS, as a device that allows the intimate association of contrasting concepts.)
For 'umbilicus' is the Idea, being therefore an 'idealistic,' Platonic concept, while 'navel' is a representation, signifying the 'materialistic,' Aristotelian acceptation!

Searching for the Idea, I realized that every creation possesses an 'umbilicus,' represented in mammals by the navel, by a signature in a work of art, or by an only intuitively grasped concept. In fact, I wrote about that idea in THE EVOLUTION OF MATTER. Now I extended that idea in a way that may "satisfy" many minds bent on holding even on a straw, as long as it might be considered as the last link to revelation. So now I can 'explain' the mystery of OUR UNIVERSE: Why its matter and energy are limited, why it follows strict Laws of Physics, and perhaps even why it really began at a given moment, i.e., time truly started at that very moment!
Not only that, the unseen umbilicus forces to 'conclude' that there are limitless numbers of OTHER UNIVERSES...

The MASTER MIND (MM), a term used in previous Interdialogs, has in stock any possible number of Potential Universes ("Potuns"), zipped as little black holes, easily unzipped... Each one contains specific amounts of matter and energy, and perhaps unimagined other components, perhaps even following peculiar unexplainable laws, thus mimicking some fancy shenanigans, such as the "entangled" photons playfully reveal.
We do not see MM's 'signature.' But it must be somewhere...

I offer this only because the third theory, that the universe will eventually implode in on itself also raises the possibility that it will afterwards explode outward again... the big bang again? And again and again?

Indeed, that is the only acceptable theory, discounting the 'umbilicus' conundrum. It is what I have called the Critical Energy-Mass (CEM) determining the maximum possible expansion of our universe. (See TIME and SPACE.)

I offer this purely from a speculatory standpoint, Jacob, primarily because it provides a rational explanation of time not as a fourth dimension, but as a function of energy -- and also solves the riddle of creation... the Alpha and the Omega and all things between -- because it all exists simultaneously as a circular unit, one big zero for all time.

Exactly! But it is my impression that time is better called a "dimension" instead of a "function," because it is implicit in energy; it is not a variable quantity.

I realize you may consider this proposition non-alethic; I offer it only because if it were an accurate theory of the universe, it would provide logical explanations for two apparent dilemmas: the question of creation and the nature of time.

Being correctly constructed to be understood, not dealing with abstruse subjects, and positing a possible truth, your sentences are alethic.

Please let me know if this is helpful at all, or if it inspires any thoughts. I'd enjoy hearing whether or not the theory could possibly play a role in the D-SP perspective.

DrZ, your musings are always helpful. The Talmud reccounts that Rabbi Akiva, a humble convert who started learning Judaism at 40, remarked, "From all my teachers I learned, but even more from my students." He meant, most probably, that he had to put his ideas in order and hone his knowledge, whenever he was requested to answer an educated question, or comment on an idea. I should immediately add that I have not read the Talmud, but I do read educated commentaries on educated commentaries... As for your theory, it hits right where it should, as far as D-SP is concerned!