Page 1 of 76 1234561151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1136

Thread: Cosmology

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569

    Cosmology

    To me there is no greater or more interesting subject than the universe itself. I have no technical training in cosmology. Everything I know or know about is from reading and self education on the subject. Not an expert, just another person with opinions and questions.

    A question that nags me constantly is whether numbers preceded the laws of physics in the creation of the universe. Did number as some kind of Platonic ideal form precede the universe itself? It seems that possibly the laws of arithmetic had to precede our universe. Would not the laws of arithmetic be invariant across all universes, if there are more than one? I can understand a different periodic table with strange elements in other universes, but a different arithmetic is hard for me to imagine. We ourselves have constructed algebras where AxB does not equal BxA. That was not our natural arithmetic. Are other universes posiible where, for instance it was the other way around. In some other universe did they have to invent a weird algebra to make AxB equal BxA? Even if they did, 2 still meant two to them, didn't it?

    Perhaps this question is interesting enough to draw some comments. It seems to stay with me.
    Last edited by desiresjab; 09-03-2015 at 08:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I'm no expert in these matter either, but I do like to express my opinion often because I don't know what my opinion even is.

    Regarding numbers, I would agree with you that they seem to transcend space and time which is what our universe is limited by. However, I was under the impression that the matrix mathematics modeling quantum physics is non-commutative, that is AxB does not have to equal BxA. A and B in this case are matrices not numbers.

    The idea of "forms" is interesting. They don't seem to be substantial and so they don't seem real. There may be all kinds of reality that do not seem substantial, but which are still real. Electromagnetic fields might be one example of this. Their only substance is that for any point of space we can assign a value to their strength which confirms with experiment. But there's nothing there. To bring this even closer to home, are species real, ontological things or are they just a way to model living reality? If one takes Niles Eldredge's punctuated equilibria idea of evolution, they are real. That would mean we are part of a larger living reality.

    Another thing about our universe is that it is constrained by its space and time and these two are tied together by the maximum limit on the speed of light. Being in the universe can then be defined as being subjected to this maximum speed limit which is called "locality". But there are non-local phenomena observed through entangled particle experiments. So there is a non-local, not-inside-the-space-and-time-universe reality whose effects we can observe.

    OK, I've rambled enough.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    42
    I too apologize for my ignorance, which I'm confident is greater than either of yours, but a question I have that may seem very naive is why the limits of the universe are ascribed to space and time. Are not space or time perceptions we have of something, and not the something itself? Just as we perceive a color or sound, unaware of light or sound waves themselves. What we call space, time, sound, color are interpretations of perceptions, no? Therefore why are space and time distinguished as more important than any other ways we perceive reality?

    Don't the laws of physics, in our own universe, change according to the nearness of the big bang, that is the further back one goes towards the beginning? So I rashly assumed the physics of a universe were probably unique and that if there are other universes their laws would likely evolve in a different way. I hope someone more knowledgable will chime in.

  4. #4
    Registered User North Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by desiresjab View Post
    To me there is no greater or more interesting subject than the universe itself. I have no technical training in cosmology. Everything I know or know about is from reading and self education on the subject. Not an expert, just another person with opinions and questions.

    A question that nags me constantly is whether numbers preceded the laws of physics in the creation of the universe. Did number as some kind of Platonic ideal form precede the universe itself? It seems that possibly the laws of arithmetic had to precede our universe. Would not the laws of arithmetic be invariant across all universes, if there are more than one? I can understand a different periodic table with strange elements in other universes, but a different arithmetic is hard for me to imagine. We ourselves have constructed algebras where AxB does not equal BxA. That was not our natural arithmetic. Are other universes posiible where, for instance it was the other way around. In some other universe did they have to invent a weird algebra to make AxB equal BxA? Even if they did, 2 still meant two to them, didn't it?

    Perhaps this question is interesting enough to draw some comments. It seems to stay with me.
    In some ways, I have to disagree with you. Mathematical operators would have to work the same way as it does in our universe, as the logic isn't bound by anything 'real', but our decimal system wouldn't mean anything to creatures that didn't develop mathematics using their ten fingers to count things. The nuclear strong force, weak force, gravitation and electromagnetism that are the four fundamental forces would still govern the universe, though. All the elements in the periodic table, and their infinite different compounds are formed in accordance with these forces. Another planet or whatnot may have a different ratio of these elements (and other particles, such as gravitons and graviolis), but I doubt that there could be elements that couldn't exist or be manufactured on Earth or in a supernova or some such.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eupalinos View Post
    I too apologize for my ignorance, which I'm confident is greater than either of yours, but a question I have that may seem very naive is why the limits of the universe are ascribed to space and time. Are not space or time perceptions we have of something, and not the something itself? Just as we perceive a color or sound, unaware of light or sound waves themselves. What we call space, time, sound, color are interpretations of perceptions, no? Therefore why are space and time distinguished as more important than any other ways we perceive reality?

    Don't the laws of physics, in our own universe, change according to the nearness of the big bang, that is the further back one goes towards the beginning? So I rashly assumed the physics of a universe were probably unique and that if there are other universes their laws would likely evolve in a different way. I hope someone more knowledgable will chime in.
    We sense wave motion as sound and colour. Motion happens in space and time, they are as real as the pressure waves producing the sound. And space and time are rather important. E.g. The Pauli exclusion principle states that two identical fermions can't occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. I would also be quite intolerant towards any attempt to sit on the chair I happen to be occupying at any given moment. You can sit there some other time, or you can sit then in some other place, and I don't care if you have a green or a red shirt. If you happen to be listening to something good, I might be more willing to make allowances, though.

    The 'laws' of physics don't change, even though the matter changes. The law doesn't change when you get old enough to be able to legally drink alcohol.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    42
    Thanks for the comments, North Star. Why, though, from philosophers to physicists, have space and time been placed ABOVE everything else? Why is wave motion, say, not of equal importance? Can space and time be experienced any more objectively than wave motion? (It seems implied in a lot of philosophy that it can be and is.)

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    42
    The universe functioned very differently at its birth than it does now, isn't that right? I thought the laws (some say habits) evolved over time.

  7. #7
    Registered User North Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Eupalinos View Post
    The universe functioned very differently at its birth than it does now, isn't that right? I thought the laws (some say habits) evolved over time.
    The laws are the same forever, and everywhere - that is why they are called universal laws. The universe has evolved, and interactions of particles and forces have become more varied, but the laws are still the same. As a person is born and grows up, their behaviour, rights, responsibilities and interactions with the world change, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the laws and norms of the society or the physical world have also changed.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    42
    I've read that precisely this idea of universal laws has been a point of contention among physicists. There's been evidence that has led to the speculation that the laws are rather an equivalent to local by-laws. (These analogies to civic life in any case somehow don't seem quite apt.) The fine-structure constant has been observed to vary in space. There is endless speculation of what is theoretically possible in other universes.

  9. #9
    Registered User North Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Eupalinos View Post
    I've read that precisely this idea of universal laws has been a point of contention among physicists. There's been evidence that has led to the speculation that the laws are rather an equivalent to local by-laws. (These analogies to civic life in any case somehow don't seem quite apt.) The fine-structure constant has been observed to vary in space. There is endless speculation of what is theoretically possible in other universes.
    Sure. There have been plenty of laws discovered that have turned out to not work in all circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that there are no laws, however. It might just mean we don't know precisely what the laws (or constants) actually are.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Some excellent responses. I think we have not discovered all the laws of physics yet. The ones we have so far are correct but not the whole picture. Our attempt is to express any anomalies or new discoveries with only those laws we know so far. That is all we can do until/if more laws of physics are discovered.

    To answer YesNo. Yes, the non-commutability does apply to matrices not natural numbers. It is still a different arithmetic, a weird one to us. My speculative question was whether in other universe beings would would have to invent something that seemed strange to them that allowed AxB to equal BxA. I am not sure the question is very good.

  11. #11
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Regarding laws of physics, I agree with North Star that they aren't supposed to change. This is more of a convenient assumption on our parts. We have to assume that what we can verify in the here and now will also work in any there and then we might imagine.

    I think of the laws of physics as a special form of literature, a kind of sacred text, that we take as literally true (until someone can convince us these texts are false). We tend to forget that people wrote the laws of physics for the use of people. They are not out there in reality. They are only models. We hope they are a good representation for whatever is really out there, but as long as they work well enough for our current purposes they are probably fine.

    One of the problems with the laws of physics is that they were written in mathematical languages. Mathematics is deterministic with constants like pi that are precise to arbitrary many decimal places. This feature makes us think that reality is the same way. But I agree with Eupalinos that reality is most likely not, given what has been found out about the uncertainty in quantum physics. Even the constants used in the laws of physics may not be constant in reality like pi is in mathematics.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Regarding laws of physics, I agree with North Star that they aren't supposed to change. This is more of a convenient assumption on our parts. We have to assume that what we can verify in the here and now will also work in any there and then we might imagine.

    I think of the laws of physics as a special form of literature, a kind of sacred text, that we take as literally true (until someone can convince us these texts are false). We tend to forget that people wrote the laws of physics for the use of people. They are not out there in reality. They are only models. We hope they are a good representation for whatever is really out there, but as long as they work well enough for our current purposes they are probably fine.

    One of the problems with the laws of physics is that they were written in mathematical languages. Mathematics is deterministic with constants like pi that are precise to arbitrary many decimal places. This feature makes us think that reality is the same way. But I agree with Eupalinos that reality is most likely not, given what has been found out about the uncertainty in quantum physics. Even the constants used in the laws of physics may not be constant in reality like pi is in mathematics.
    Mathmatics is not a problem. Well, it is a problem when we cannot understand it and would like to. I run into math beyond the boundaries of my knowledge all the time.

    The misconception I find with non math folk in my experience is not exactly This feature makes us think that reality is the same way, but it is related perhaps. Many people do not understand that proofs in science and proofs in math are not done the same way. Scientific "proofs" consist of the repeatability of experimental results. Then the math is worked out and confirms the results. Sometimes the math comes first. It might lie there practically unnoticed for generations until a smart scientist notices the connection to his experiments. Pure mathematical proofs require no more than some sand and a finger.

    We are all familiar with the phrase the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Some mathematicians have pointed out that they think the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics is more realistic. They say mathematics is dreadfully ineffective everywhere that it is not unreasonably effective, which is a lot of places.

    A few scientists are currently exploring the hypothetical connection between consciousness and quantum physics. What a monumental task! Is mathematics even suited for the job? Apparently they are using Li Algebra for some of the work, according to Ed Mitchell. I have a suspicion that new mathematics will have to be invented. I have never done any Li algebra, so can't say much about it or its chances of being successful. It is interesting and encouraging that high powered minds are now taking up this challenge.

    I have my own theories about consciousness and quantum physics, but they are lay fantasies not supported (or unsupported) by math. We are in between the scale of the universe and the scale of the atom. I do not know if it is my own phrase, but I call it quantum leakage into our scale. I have a suspicion (not a belief) that alpha religious experiences, dreams, ESP, all of what we call psychic phenomena are due to quantum leakage into our scale. Dreams seem to share many characteristics with quantum "reality." I could easily believe that a hundred years or more will pass before any progress is made in this endeavour. Maybe never. We may meet our limits somewhere, and this could be the place.

  13. #13
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I haven't read Wigner's paper on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Here is a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Un...tural_Sciences This is probably the article: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathD...ng/Wigner.html

    I don't think mathematics needs to describe some natural phenomenon. For example, transfinite numbers don't seem to have much use in our finite universe. Only some mathematics has use-value in the natural sciences.

    I like your idea of quantum leakage, but I don't understand it. Regarding supernormal phenomena (to use Dean Radin's term), I assume there is more going on than we are culturally willing to admit.

    Although natural sciences rely heavily on mathematics to make predictions other sciences such as economics or psychology don't unless they are processing data. They still make predictions based on theory (rules or laws). Sometimes the predictions actually come true which is why people want to get the advice of economists and psychiatrists. Even a reader of Tarot cards is making predictions based on a theory, rules or laws that they interpret and people pay for those services for the same reason they pay for a physicist's or economist's or a psychiatrist's predictions: the predictions provide use-value to them.

    But think of what each of these disciplines attempting to make predictions imply about reality. They are not consistent views. The physicist using deterministic mathematics implies that reality is deterministic and completely reducible to unconscious stuff. There is no need for consciousness in that view. The economist and psychiatrist assumes there is some form of individual consciousnesses making choices but nothing more than that. The Tarot reading implies there is some sort of psychic reality enveloping those individual consciousnesses.

    The problem is that predictions on all these levels work reasonably well enough that people are willing to pay physicists, economists, psychiatrists and Tarot readers for their services. They are all unreasonably effective, or effective enough to provide use-value to others.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Redwood Empire
    Posts
    1,569
    Comparing Tarot cards to mathematics and science seems like a bad analogy from the start. Tarot card prediction can do no better than 50% in the long run, and is pure charlatanism, hardly good enough for science. In fact, statistics can be used to disprove the use value of Tarot cards to anyone who can understand the reasoning. Tarot cards are no better at prediction than religion or soothsayers. Well, it's useful to me, dammit, is hardly good enough either. This is no more logical than people standing on the word Faith to actually mean, I will believe any illogical thing I want, and you cannot prove I am wrong.

    Calculus uses both infinitesimal and infinite "quantities" with wonderful and undeniable results. Complex numbers were useless to begin with, other than providing a theoretical basis for solutions we already knew existed, but have now found their way into many fields where they are gainfully employed with everyday jobs. Transfinite math may well have its day in applied math. No one can say.

    Determinism is not a mathematical construct. Mathematics is neutral, unless you want to claim that two must follow one is determinism. The fact that the square root of 64 must be 8 does not to me imply that the physical universe is deterministic. There is no physical cause and effect in math, other than the trivial genre I just cited. Maybe you have an idea which could change my mind on this, since it is not ironclad yet. Like a telescope, math neutrally facilitates and organizes logical observation, without standing for a particular view of the universe.

    Maybe you feel the trivial determinism of math "leaks" into science, or pours in. Maybe it does. And surely I cannot prove otherwise. It is an interesting question.

  15. #15
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by desiresjab View Post
    Comparing Tarot cards to mathematics and science seems like a bad analogy from the start. Tarot card prediction can do no better than 50% in the long run, and is pure charlatanism, hardly good enough for science. In fact, statistics can be used to disprove the use value of Tarot cards to anyone who can understand the reasoning. Tarot cards are no better at prediction than religion or soothsayers. Well, it's useful to me, dammit, is hardly good enough either. This is no more logical than people standing on the word Faith to actually mean, I will believe any illogical thing I want, and you cannot prove I am wrong.
    I am just trying on ideas here. However, I mentioned Tarot cards because I was expecting you would not see them as a "science". Some people don't see psychiatry as a science either. Or economics, but they all make predictions based on patterns that form part of their theories.

    Just because someone has a theory doesn't mean it is good at making predictions. There are many theories I don't believe in, such as, the belief that the world will end with the coming blood moon. We will see if that prediction holds true in a few weeks. I put it right up there with the interpretation of quantum theory called "many worlds".

    With regard to the Tarot, I think there might be something to it, but I am still trying to make sense out of what that is. I can see the card patterns as a kind of prompt to stimulate the intuition of the reader to come up with a prediction. This would be similar to someone giving a prompt in a writing exercise. But why should the prediction work, that is, be useful to the hearer? It could be that the hearer makes the prediction work by acting to encourage or discourage the prediction. More shocking, at least to our modern biases, there could be a psychic reality that we are a part of that is deliberately talking to us through things like these card patterns. This would be an interpretation of the Tarot that would imply that there is more going on than just a prompt. It would be like saying the muses are real.

    Quote Originally Posted by desiresjab View Post
    Calculus uses both infinitesimal and infinite "quantities" with wonderful and undeniable results. Complex numbers were useless to begin with, other than providing a theoretical basis for solutions we already knew existed, but have now found their way into many fields where they are gainfully employed with everyday jobs. Transfinite math may well have its day in applied math. No one can say.
    The calculus uses the idea of a "limit". This avoids actually working with a zero in the denominator. So infinity is never actually used. Complex numbers could be represented by 2 by 2 matrices if the "imaginary" number i referring to the square root of -1 is a problem. One of the objections to transfinite numbers, such as that given by Leopold Kronecker, is that they have no physical representation and so they should not be considered part of mathematics.

    Regarding the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, people think mathematics is reasonably effective. That may be a cultural bias. This is another reason why I bring up economics, psychology and the Tarot. It is more easy for people to see that the patterns studied by these theories, to the extent they work, are "unreasonably effective". They don't believe that about mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by desiresjab View Post
    Determinism is not a mathematical construct. Mathematics is neutral, unless you want to claim that two must follow one is determinism. The fact that the square root of 64 must be 8 does not to me imply that the physical universe is deterministic. There is no physical cause and effect in math, other than the trivial genre I just cited. Maybe you have an idea which could change my mind on this, since it is not ironclad yet. Like a telescope, math neutrally facilitates and organizes logical observation, without standing for a particular view of the universe.

    Maybe you feel the trivial determinism of math "leaks" into science, or pours in. Maybe it does. And surely I cannot prove otherwise. It is an interesting question.
    That two must follow one is the basis for the determinism I am talking about. A mathematical function with time as an input parameter becomes a deterministic model. That is why it is a problem.

    Suppose there existed a world function. One can then start with an input state and get any past or present state as the output. As I understand quantum physics, such a world function cannot exist. All one can get is a deterministic "wave function" which only gives a non-random range of probabilities for a particular state.

    Because of that one is forced to ask: if the universe really isn't deterministic as previously believed, why does mathematics work as well as it does? It is just as unreasonably effective as economics, psychiatry or even the Tarot.

Page 1 of 76 1234561151 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. joyous cosmology 2.13.08
    By NikolaiI in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-14-2008, 10:13 PM
  2. joyous cosmology, 2.12.08
    By NikolaiI in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 08:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •