Science Magazine's 125 Questions

[Avatar]

Perhaps neither of us are being partiularly clear, which is maybe to be expected, given the uncertainty of the topic.

I don't agree. The principles exist, regardless of our observations and inferences. I'm convinced they exist, because I don't see how reality could be anything other than absolute chaos if there weren't any.

Hmm, while I generally think that the universe is in absolute chaos, I think I'm getting to what you mean...

...I'm talking about at the most fundamental levels possible; deeper than anything we've yet observed. We observe that quarks and gluons and all that jazz behave in certain ways. But why should it be so? Why doesn't a quark do X one day, and Y the next? Because some deeper principle guides it. If, all factors being equal, it randomly did different things at different times, where would we be?

Sort of a "natural law" or at least, principle of physics, that keeps every electron in its orbit or whatever, down to far past the level that we can see at the moment.

I can understand that, sure. But a principle like that would have to be along the lines of "in every possible case", where, as I (admittedly only sketchily) understand it now, we can only say that we "think" that "usually" X happens because of Y.

Once we understand that "principle", we'll be able to account for the cases where it is not true?

The difference between what is, and what we think is, is just another of those questions I guess.

True enough.

--A

[[Syl]]

That's the underpinning of scientific theory, isn't it? [x] behaves in [y] pattern under [z] conditions approaching but not equal to %100 of the time. I believe what Fist is talking about is an ultimate, universal proof.

[Avatar]

Valid in 100% of situations? Yeah, I think that's where he's heading.

I also think though, that that particular search will last for "eternity", or at least until the cold death of the universe. Every rule, every principle, every theory makes way for more "non-understanding", and required further exploration.

For every answer, a thousand questions, is how it has always been, and I see no reason why it shouldn't carry on like that. Hell, to extend that line of thought, I think I may prefer it that way. What a terrible day it may be when we finally say, "That's it. We understand everything now."

In the meantime though, I can enjoy the search.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

OH, I agree!! I'm not saying we will ever understand it all. And I agree that the searching is the most important thing. I'm just saying I think there's some "100% of the time" principle. Really, the only thing I know about Chaos Theory is what Jeff Goldbloom said in Jurrasic Park. Not much at all. But he was talking about how things can be random on the observable level. I believe they are not random on a level that we cannot observe. (Can't observe yet, anyway.)

[Avatar]

I see what you're saying.

But to me, the opposite of random is planned, or deliberate which, again, always to me, implies a Planner, and that is where it tends to fall down.

Planned implies a reason, when actually, I suspect that in the end, the reason is "just because".

Take what you were saying about Jurassic Park. Didn't he use an example about a drop of water, and which way it would roll when dropped onto skin? (I can't remember his explanation at all.)

But take that example-- It appears random, right? But actually, a million factors influence it.

It depends on the way the hair on your skin is lying, (which in turn depends on the wind, (which depends on air pressure, (which depends on temperature etc. (which depends on countless other factors)))) on the way you brushed your hand against your side, (which depends on...you see where I'm going with this, don't you?), on the way...(right, I'm sure you've got it. )

There are reasons, good reasons, for every single thing that it depends on, and each of those things depend on other things. But there is no reason behind the fact that any of those things happened. They just did. And the fact that they did, just happened to result in the drop rolling one way.

If any single one of those million factors had happed differently, (which is perfectly possible), the drop might have rolled a different way. It might not.

Things are predictable, as long as you can account for every single variable. That's why weather "predictions" are so dodgy. Is every variable predictable? And every variable that each of those variable depend on? And so on?

Theoretically I guess. But when I say "random chaos," I suppose my concept of it is more metaphysical than scientific.

--Avatar

[matrixman]

I haven't read any books on chaos theory myself, but I did watch an episode of Nova about it years ago. Too bad I've forgotten much of it. Anyway, my main impression is that you can use chaos theory to reveal general patterns of behaviour in systems, you just can't say anything about the precise behaviour of something in the system at any point. It's about probability, right? We could be talking about population statistics or the weather. So we can say there's a good chance there will be tornadoes in a general area (like Tornado Alley in the U.S.) but we can't say when and where exactly a specific twister will touch down.

The quantum mechanical view of "reality" is also one of probabilities and inherent fuzziness (at the subatomic level anyway)...which is why I'm intrigued by that question:

Do deeper principles underlie quantum uncertainty and nonlocality?

I'm curious as to how in the blazes they plan to test that question.

The most startling thing about those questions is what they reveal of scientists' lack of knowledge - even about basic principles like gravity.

Yes, there are many deep questions science has not answered. I love science because it asks questions and tests those questions as best it can. Science is not content with the world; if it ever does become content, then perhaps it can't be called science as we know it anymore.

I only know that based on what I’ve witnessed during my short life I am suitably amazed at the wonders humans have wrought. It’s not all glorious. We tend to destroy as much as we create but I have fairly high hopes.

Yes, it's a basically a race between our intelligence and our stupidity, isn't it? Science begets technology that improves our world and ourselves, but that technology can also end up polluting the world and destroying lives. It most certainly has not all been glorious.

[Avatar]

Yes, it's a basically a race between our intelligence and our stupidity, isn't it?

Excellently put.

--A

[Menolly]

I haven't read any books on chaos theory myself, but I did watch an episode of Nova about it years ago. Too bad I've forgotten much of it.

Was it The Elegant Universe series of episodes? If so, you can watch all three episodes at Watch the Program.

Yes, it's a basically a race between our intelligence and our stupidity, isn't it? Science begets technology that improves our world and ourselves, but that technology can also end up polluting the world and destroying lives. It most certainly has not all been glorious.

Or to put it another way...

Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.---
Anne Frank

[matrixman]

Thanks for the links, Menolly. However, the Nova episode on chaos theory was actually from waaay back. I saw it in the '80s. The recent Elegant Universe shows had to do with string theory, and they were a lot of fun to watch. Brian Greene is a pretty good host. I love Nova and I love PBS! Thank goodness for public broadcasting.

I do hope to read Greene's books, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, one of these days.