|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
My problem is I don't know how to articulate that there is nothing but the laws, which allow a material "nothing" to develop into a material "something". It's hard to picture only "laws" existing. I find it hard, yes. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. What would it mean for a law to exist? I have always been against reifying the laws of nature. If you asked me to explain what a law of nature is, I'd have answered something like this: "Laws of nature are essentially descriptive. Take the laws concerning electricity, for example. It is a fact that electrons and photons behave in certain ways. The laws summarize the ways in which they behave. They all behave like this simply because all electrons are electrons, and all photons are photons. There is not a third thing --- the law --- that interacts with the electrons and photons and tells them what to do. Rather, the law tells us what the photons and electrons do. If they all did something different, there would be a different law." What you are saying seems to conflict with this. It would seem that you're saying that a law can be a thing which can sit there (where?) before there's anything for it to be a law about. In fact, right now there could exist laws governing the interaction of squonons and thripons, only we don't notice it because those particular things don't happen to exist --- but the law does. That would be odd. So from my perspective, the correct account would not be to say that there are laws governing the behavior of nothing, but that this "nothing" has a tendency to behave in a certain way, in which case it has properties and is not nothing. Would this formulation of whatever you guys are talking about be acceptable? That is, instead of saying that there is nothing, and laws external to it, I would like to say that there is "nothing" and properties inherent in it. Would that actually be objectionable? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps there are better way of describing this than "nothing but laws". However I should say the null set above is genuinely the null set of mathematics. Yes ... but ... the thing I'm worrying about ... I think that a "nothing" with laws applying to it is not actually nothing. Because it has qualities, in that it has a way in which it tends to behave. You say that it's the null set, but I think that the set of aardvarks which are elephants (a null set) does not have any tendency to create a universe. If every logical characterization of the null set had to make a universe, then we'd be knee-deep in them. It has to be a "null set" with the property of obeying certain laws. There may be an ambiguity here between what you mean by "null set" as a physicist and what I mean as a mathematician. I am most grateful to you for explaining the physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Mmm ... I don't completely follow the point that you're trying to make. I don't say that your point is wrong, but I think that you should express it sufficiently formally that I know whether I agree with it or I don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What I'm trying to say is that the universe may have an answer that we can understand... the ultimate explanation may be "By definition" if our understanding of the universe can reach that point. But "by definition" is a different sort of answer to a different sort of question. It's not the sort of answer you could give to a question about the causes of things. The "why" in "why is velocity distance over time?" is actually a different "why" to the "why" in the question (for example) "why did John Wilkes Booth kill Abraham Lincoln?"; and when we are answering it the "because" is a different "because". In the first case, it is because we have defined velocity to be distance over time, whereas in the second case it is not because we defined "John Wilkes Booth" as being "whatever killed Abraham Lincoln". To answer the second question, we'd have to talk about things like slavery and the Confederacy and the Civil War.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
However, it may very well come down to that. At some level, reality may be bound to some basic, simplistic statement. Quite so. But this statement, by virtue of being "basic" will itself lack any further explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I understand. But, as with your previous example about the explanation for diamonds being about what causes diamonds... all your examples seem to hinge on the assumption that the universe must have a cause. But what if it doesn't? No, I didn't assume that the universe must have a cause. But if it doesn't, then that leaves it rather hard to explain. There's a reason for the cause in because.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Alpha decay does not have a cause. Well, yes and no. It's probabilistic in nature, there's no saying whether it'll happen at some time or other. But we can say there are circumstances under which there is a non-zero probability of it happening. Now, if there were circumstances under which there was a non-zero probability of the universe happening, then we could ask: why did those circumstances exist, how did they come about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For the love of Dog man, don't ask me! I mean you might as well ask me why my wife reacts completely differently to identical situations on different days. I would be the first to agree that there is no apparent rhyme or reason for her reactions sometimes but deep down I am sure that there are some however circuitous the causal chain may be. Ah, she has hidden variables. But there is experimental evidence to say that in quantum mechanics there aren't any hidden variables.
My point is that when we examine the universe we see that 99.9999...% of all things have a cause. Well, yes and no. One of the exercises they give to people starting out in quantum mechanics is to calculate the probability that if you run hard at a brick wall you'll pass through it rather than breaking your nose. This probability is small but non-zero, and there would be no cause of you succeeding rather than failing in running through the wall. Because the probability is very very very small, you appear to live in a universe of cause and effect in which running at the wall causes you to break your nose. Now, you say "when we examine the universe we see that 99.9999...% of all things have a cause". Well, a physicist might retort that that depends on which aspects of the universe you examine. Because you spend your time looking at objects visible to the naked eye, the probability of something very unusual like someone walking through a wall is so tiny that you appear to live in a world of deterministic cause and effect. If you spent your time observing quarks and electrons, you be saying "when we examine the universe we see that 99.9999...% of all things don't have a cause", and I'd be writing you a post explaining how when you sit down and do the math, it turns out that they pretty much do. Now, the thing is this. If we suppose that on the smallest scale the world is acausal and non-deterministic, then we can explain why the universe could be born and die a trillion times over before you could have any expectation of observing, with the naked eye, some event which seemed acausal and non-deterministic. And we can also explain quantum mechanics. If instead we suppose that on the smallest scale the world is causal and deterministic, then we can explain why you would never ever observe, with the naked eye, some event which seemed acausal and non-deterministic. And we could not explain quantum mechanics. The first theory, therefore, embraces all the observations we make, including observations we make using special apparatus such as particle accelerators and stuff like that. The second theory only embraces all the observations that you make in your everyday life. Now, there is nothing special about the things we observe from day to day and the scale that we observe things on that makes the second theory so preferable that it means that we can discount all the evidence supporting the first theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Let the nurse listen to Inadequate talk, Disentangled. The poor bugger is raving about the probabilities of the existence to exist. There are three reasons you should not tell stupid lies about the content of my posts. The first is that doing this is dishonest. The second is that doing this is stupid. And the third is that doing this makes you look dishonest and stupid; and if the first two considerations don't sway you, which apparently they don't, then surely your immense overweening vanity would make you wish to avoid exposing yourself in public as a halfwitted liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That was the position we were in until 2011, when a major new paper showed that (2) is just flat out impossible. What was the paper, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If I back away from the explanation of why the universe is acausal at some level and accept that it is, at what point and how does the universe change from being acausal to causal? What happens is that as you look at larger and larger objects, they have a greater and greater probability of behaving in a more and more classical manner. Correspondence principle - Wikipedia There's no particular cutoff point between quantum physics and classical physics, classical physics is the limit of quantum physics as the things you're thinking about get bigger. If you are unfamiliar with the idea of a limit, one example is that a circle is the limit of a regular polygon as you increase the number of sides. No polygon, however many sides it has, is a circle; there is no cutoff point (say, a million sides) where we can say: "anything with fewer sides then that is a polygon, but anything with more sides is a circle", but we can say that as the number of sides increases the polygon gets more and more like a circle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are 619 total characters counting spaces. No random letter generator would ever produce that exact text (including "return" button) even in infinite time. Yes it would. Trivially it would. Indeed, in infinite time it would produce it an infinite number of times. That's just basic math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time. Well, that statement is strictly true, but in order that it not be misleading we should add the caveat that it's "considered mathematically impossible" by innumerate people rather than by mathematicians. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That is tenet of faith ... That's a funny way of saying "obvious fact".
... for some people who belong to the church of chance and infinity. That's a funny way of saying "mathematicians".
I believe the view is demonstrably false. But not so demonstrable that it can be demonstrated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024