|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
onifre writes: There a a few great discussions about it in the Big Bang and Cosmology threads. ... Well you'll get both here, Cavediver and Son Goku are Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist respectively. Excellent. Looks like I have some reading to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: I think the dilemma is real. Either we have a chain of explanations which doesn't have an ultimate explanation, or we have something which, by virtue of being an ultimate explanation, cannot (by definition) be explained. I agree in the sense that at some point there is no explanation for asking "but why..." again. Sort of like the child's game...My point is that if it turns out there actually is an ultimate explanation, it may be possible for us to understand it. Of course we can ask "but why..." again, if we want. But it can also get kind of silly to ask such (given certain circumstances). For example: "What is the explanation for velocity?""Velocity is distance over time." "But why is velocity disance over time?" ...sure, we can ask the question, it's just a bit silly to anyone who understands what distance, time and velocity actually are and how they are used and understood. I am not saying that this "silly situation" is bound to happen, just that it might happen if the universe's origin can possible have an explanation that we can understand. Perhaps the origin of the universe is not something we're able to figure out or explain or gain knowledge about... in those cases, the "silly situation" is not a possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I am thinking about how I could rework my argument and one question I have is this:
Is the following statement true:
Notice I am using the words "governs how" and not the word "cause" in this statement. I'm thinking that, while the underlying laws may govern how the effects occur, they do not cause them. However, this is a little confusing because if there were no quantum laws I don't see how there could be any quantum effects! We can't have ungoverned, rogue effects out there. So, can't it reasonably be said its the presence of the underlying structure of quantum law that "gives rise to" the effects, both causal and acausal? And isn't that the same as saying the quantum laws "cause" the effects, both causal and acausal? What do you think? Is there a conventionally accepted wisdom on this question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
nano writes: What do you think? Is there a conventionally accepted wisdom on this question? It really doesn't matter what words you use, in the end they're only words - things we've invented to communicate and help us reason. They are completely useless when we try to use them to talk about things that are, in normal terms, irrational. The stuff we're talking about here can only be understood, if at all, using mathematics. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I think Ferdinand de Saussure just turned over in his grave.
Scientists talk to each other. They write whole books without any heavy math in them. I want to know what they say on this subject. Would they characterize the universe's underlying structure of quantum law as "governing" causal and acausal quantum effects or do they characterize it as "causing" causal and acausal quantum effects. Or is it characterized another way by scientists? Its interesting because the question arises "Are acausal quantum effects truly acausal if they can be explained by quantum law?" Or do we have truly "rogue actors" loose in the universe that are governed by no physical laws? Its also interesting because I think just about everyone here agrees that quantum fluctuations are responsible for the origin of the universe. In the background, sat the universe's underlying structure of quantum law and as has already been said in message 19:
Son Goku writes: So you can have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from nothing, it's the presence of the laws you can't explain. So, ultimately, did the laws "cause" the universe? Could they be considered a "first thing"? Or should I just leave it at the presence of the laws can't be explained at this time? Its all very confusing and I need some help sorting it all out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Would they characterize the universe's underlying structure of quantum law as "governing" causal Governing might be an appropriate word. 'Descriptive' might work just as well. The laws as you might read them in a text book describe how things in the universe work, and how the universe itself works. But a description of the origin of the universe based on the laws of physics as we know or understand them IS an explanation. That description may or may not include an ultimate first cause. If in fact, the ultimate cause is God speaking, we can be assured that science won't uncover the cause.
Its also interesting because I think just about everyone here agrees that quantum fluctuations are responsible for the origin of the universe. I'm not sure what the majority here think, but I don't think that and based on some previous discussions with EvC resident physicists, they don't seem overly enamored with that possibility either.
So, ultimately, did the laws "cause" the universe? Could they be considered a "first thing"? Perhaps there is some physics, some metaphysics, and some theology in your questions. I think the laws are a "first thing", but are they the first, "first thing"?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
How about acausal effects? Are they truly acausal if they are governed or described by underlying physical laws? Any feedback on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
In quantum mechanics for example, if you fire an electron from a electron gun toward a screen that will detect the electron, then the electron will strike the screen at a random point. All the laws of quantum mechanics do is control/govern the probability distribution which describes how likely the electron is to strike an individual point on the screen. Nothing governs or controls where it actually strikes however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
That helps. Thank you. Thanks to NoNukes as well.
So, the quantum laws describe boundaries for quantum effects, both causal and acausal, but nothing controls or governs where those effects play-out within the boundaries. Do I have that right? This is really the heart of quantum mechanics, isn't it? I mean, within certain boundaries you have truly unknowable (to some degree) forces/effects and it is impossible to know or predict where they will show up. Ultimately, doesn't this say that Materialism (the belief that everything can be described by matter, its interactions and the underlying physical laws of the universe) is wrong? For example, I used to think that all thought in one's mind was simple chemical interaction, but knowing that quantum effects are truly unpredictable and acausal means I can't say that. It seems to me, at the end of the day, we are left with a very real limit on how much we can know about everything since important processes in the universe are acausal and therefore unpredictable/unknowable, perhaps even, dare I say, unexplainable to some degree. Am I drawing reasonable conclusions here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
nano writes:
Quantum Mechanical laws govern the probabilities of various outcomes, they do not govern the outcomes themselves.
So, the quantum laws describe boundaries for quantum effects, both causal and acausal, but nothing controls or governs where those effects play-out within the boundaries. Do I have that right? This is really the heart of quantum mechanics, isn't it? I mean, within certain boundaries you have truly unknowable (to some degree) forces/effects and it is impossible to know or predict where they will show up.
I don't know if this will just mess with your head, but it's not that the forces, e.t.c. are unknowable, it's simply that there is nothing to know. For example if I measure an electron's spin and let's say quantum mechanics says there is a 1/4 chance of measuring spin-up and a 3/4 chance of measuring spin-down. These probabilities don't represent my lack of knowledge about the electron's spin, the electron has no definitive spin, all it "has", i.e. the only properties it possesses are probabilities to return results to measuring equipment (or other physical systems it doesn't have to be human measuring equipment). The electron "is" this collection of probabilities, not an object with some unknown spin/momentum/position, e.t.c. This is all a consequence of the Kochen-Specker theorem and other deep results in quantum mechanics.
Ultimately, doesn't this say that Materialism (the belief that everything can be described by matter, its interactions and the underlying physical laws of the universe) is wrong?
Well I'm not sure what various versions of Materialism say, but I wouldn't say quantum mechanics says that nature isn't described by physical laws, it just says that matter "is" a collection of probabilities on the smallest scales.
For example, I used to think that all thought in one's mind was simple chemical interaction, but knowing that quantum effects are truly unpredictable and acausal means I can't say that.
In this sense though you are no different from a stone, everything at the deepest level is quantum mechanical. However your mind does not receive contributions from quantum effects. Due to decoherence, large objects do have determined physical states, so there is no quantum randomness to your mental states. I've a post somewhere on the forum dealing with the papers which calculated this.
It seems to me, at the end of the day, we are left with a very real limit on how much we can know about everything since important processes in the universe are acausal and therefore unpredictable/unknowable, perhaps even, dare I say, unexplainable to some degree.
Again, they are not unknowable, there is nothing to know. Think of a dice role. Six possible numbers, each with a certain probability (all equal if the dice is fair). In normal probability those numbers stand in for my lack of information (I can't predict the exact trajectory of the dice in advance). In Quantum Mechanics, the electron actually is those numbers! They are its properties. Not that this makes any sense to the human mind, or at least my mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
nano writes: I think Ferdinand de Saussure just turned over in his grave. I think Ferdinand would be the first to acknowledge that there is a limit to what human language can convey and it fails entirely when it hits these big physics ideas. As you're now experiencing. Generally, language fails because, while the words we use to describe these things are understandable in themselves, they make no sense at all to the normal human mind. For example, can you tell me what the everyday word 'nothing' means? We can say - and completely understand the phrase "there's nothing in the cupboard" But when we say "there's nothing outside the universe" it makes no sense at all. Similarly, your uncaused first cause has no meaning - it's an un-resolveable paradox if you're restricted to words and logic. The only way these things can be understood - if at all - is through mathematics. Even those people that think they understand the concepts say that they make no normal sense.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Son Goku writes: ...good stuff... Very, very good stuff. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes: Even those people that think they understand the concepts say that they make no normal sense. That's where the fun comes in. I'm having a blast talking about this stuff. I hope you can to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree in the sense that at some point there is no explanation for asking "but why..." again. Sort of like the child's game... My point is that if it turns out there actually is an ultimate explanation, it may be possible for us to understand it. There might be certain ways in which we could understand it, but we couldn't explain it or it wouldn't be an ultimate explanation.
Of course we can ask "but why..." again, if we want. But it can also get kind of silly to ask such (given certain circumstances). For example: "What is the explanation for velocity?""Velocity is distance over time." "But why is velocity disance over time?" Well, that does have an answer: "By definition".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024