Much Ado About Nothing

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Ultimately, as far as science is concerned, yes, it will, or at least could, come down to that. We just don't know if we've reached that point - where it is not possible to go further down - yet. Is there a mechanism that gives rise to the collapsing waveforms? Science will look for such a mechanism until it finds one, or finds that one is not possible.

Post by **Vraith** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:23 pm

peter wrote: has science reached a point that without the need to say 'there are some things science cannot answer' or 'this is a thing about which we can have no knowledge' it can happily say 'yes - we now know all we need to about how we come to be here' and feel satisfied that there is no need for further (be it metaphysical or not) speculation.

First, yep to what Fist said. SOME scientists [mostly bad or short-sighted ones] have said before "we can't know about this" and/or "we know all we need"...but they've always turned out to be wrong.
IIRC, for quite a long time many of the best physicists, speaking of string theory, said "It may very well be true, but we can't test it, it doesn't predict...so it isn't science, it's metaphysics/philosophy." But it now seems there MIGHT be ways to test it.
On the whole the "war" between the physics/metaphysics hasn't been science making metaphysical claims, it has been metaphysics making demonstrably false claims about the physical.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:32 pm

Of course, if you subscribe to membrane theory then it is easy to figure out both how and why our universe exists--two (or more) membranes collided/intersected and our universe is the result of that intersection. The nice thing about this idea is that it gives you a solution for gravity--it is a force that existed in one of the membranes and is thus inherent in our universe--but also makes it clear that some day this universe could cease to exist.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:40 pm

But then science will try to find the mechanism that gave rise to the membranes.

Post by **Avatar** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:49 am

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:... but the Big Bang happened before quantum mechanics began working, so that wouldn't be very accurate.

Really? How sure are we of that?

--A

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:59 am

Depends what we count quantum mechanics as. In the first instants of the big bang the four fundamental forces didn't exist seperately. We don't have any mathematics to describe that state yet, because we can't unify gravity with quantum mechanics.

Post by **peter** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:07 am

I've been thinking about this 'science's exclusion from "why" questions' and I'm not sure it stacks up. Science in itself may not answer these questions - but it repeatedly provides us with the means to do so. eg Why does a fox have forward facing eyes, and a rabbit eyes on the sides of it's head; is it not science that has provided the answer to this question. Is in fact the only why question that science does not provide the means to answer the one we have been considering - and that quite possibly for good reasons, eg Orlion's above, or that the question 'dissapears' (ala Hawking's 'edge of the world') in the maths pertaining to the first instant of 'creation' (for want of a better word).

While the question may indeed be one that is entierly in the personal dimension in it's 'way to be dealt with' I could never see it as unimportant. For me it is one of the 'BIG' questions and one that I believe science will be able to answer or explain away even if it cannot currently do so.

(A quick aside - I read with interest Hashi's post re membrane theory (incidentally - given that the universe exists is this not evidence enough in itself that membrane theory is at least on the right track if not the final deal - I seem to remember someone saying that every time you switch on a TV you confirm the correctness of quantum mechanics. If membrane theory predicts the existance of the universe and the universe exists, can we not say "Bingo!") and the comment re gravity. Have we not already decided that gravity is not 'a force' in the same sense as the other three - merely an appearance of a force as a result of the 'bending of space time'.)

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:12 am

I think a number of places in this topic have alredy pointed out there are scientists and there are theories attempting to explain what exists before or outside of the universe. We just don't have the means to prove or disprove most of them at the moment. No one is claiming scientists just don't bother.

Re: gravity. If we thought gravity was not a force similar to the others then we wouldn't be hunting for the gravitational boson.

Post by **peter** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:27 am

Always the same - every time I think I've got something under my belt it transpires I'm all wrong.

If by the 'gravitational boson' you mean the elusive Higg's - I thought that was the particle that confered 'mass' to matter and that mass was (in some way) independant of gravity. As Homer Simpson would say "Dooohh!"

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:07 pm

If we want to word it that way, we can ask why a fox's eyes are situated where they are on its head - what function is served - because we can see the answer. Different types of vision allow for the creature to do different things, and different creatures live in different ways. Science can examine these things in great detail.

However, science had no way of studying why the universe exists - what purpose it serves.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:13 pm

Avatar wrote:
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:... but the Big Bang happened before quantum mechanics began working, so that wouldn't be very accurate.
Really? How sure are we of that?

--A

I think quantum mechanics breaks down if you get earlier than, what was it, 10^-40 seconds (or something like that). Based on that, I presume we have absolutely no way of being able to reach any conclusions about anything earlier.

So far, membranes appear to offer a framework which gives an explanation as to how things could exist before our known universe as well as answering "how" the universe happened. This doesn't mean that it is right, of course, because I don't think it is possible to independently observe or measure membranes.

I am still of the opinion that gravity is a force that bleeds into our four-dimensional spacetime from some higher dimension or a different membrane.

Post by **peter** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:56 am

Fist and Faith wrote:If we want to word it that way, we can ask why a fox's eyes are situated where they are on its head - what function is served - because we can see the answer. Different types of vision allow for the creature to do different things, and different creatures live in different ways. Science can examine these things in great detail.

However, science had no way of studying why the universe exists - what purpose it serves.

This is I think what I was saying a few posts ago Fist, but was I correct in speculating that the 'why' of the universes existence is the only 'why' that science has nothing (as yet) to say about. 'Why' is surely only a 'cause and effect' question until this knotty area of the start of everything comes up.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:46 pm

Yes and no. Sure, we ask Why in typical conversation. We wonder why a tsunami killed thousands in Japan. We go to an oceanographer and geologist and ask them why it happened. And they might even say, "Here's why..." But we're really asking what conditions brought it about. Science is trying to learn what conditions brought about the Big Bang. In casual conversation, we may even word it, "Why did the Big Bang take place?"

Does it matter which way we word it? It depends on the conversation we're having. If someone is asking from a pholosophical or religious stance, it certainly matters. They're trying to assign a kind of meaning to things that science is not concerned with and is not capable of examining. Science's response to such lines of questioning is, "That's not my area. I examine what can be examined as best I can." Some of them then say this is a shortcoming of science. It's no more a shortcoming of science than it is a shortcoming of Michael Phelps that he isn't trying to develop a 100mph fastball.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:35 pm

The difference between reason and purpose.

Post by **peter** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:44 am

Does science 'elect' not to concern itself with such questions and if so is it on the basis that they a) Have no answer that can be subjected to scrutiny by the experimental method (ie not 'falsifiable) b)Have no meaning within the existing theories as they stand or c) Feel (as I think Orlion was sugesting) that science is not yet in a position that it can meaningfully adress them.

Sorry if I apear to be going round in circles here guys, but I am trying to get the situation into shape where I can comprehend (if only roughly) what the state of play is. Here's my dilema. Stephen Hawking is a bright guy - he says (the old) philosophy is dead and that science is the new philosophy and that all the questions that can (meaningfully) be asked will be answered by science and using the 'scientific method' we currently employ. Stephen Law is also a bright guy (he's the one who wrote the philosophy book that started thid thread) - he says the 'mystery of why there is something as opposed to nothing' is as real as it ever was and that science is no closer to answering it now than it was when Thales first started to posit natural explanations foe observable phenomena. I have to say (with some regret I admit) that from what I have heard so far it seems he may be correct. The question might be 'irelevant' or 'not interesting' or whatever, but it doesn't sound as though it is to me. On the contrary it sounds like just the sort of question science should be adressing. Law says there are very definite limitations to the answers science can provide about many of the 'big questions' - not least because it presupposes certain conditions (eg that the five senses give us direct acess to reality) that philosophy does not take for granted. Thus in Law's mind it is philosophy that will take us forward to new levels of understanding about our position in the 'great scheme of things'; certainly utilising the advances that science makes in it's own framework - but in no way secondary to them.

Now both of these guys can't be right.........

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:27 pm

Yes, Law is right. Why - how it came to be that - there is something instead of nothing is an outrageous mystery. And it doesn't seem we'll have an answer any time soon. If there was anything before the BB, or if anything caused it, the BB was of such intensity that it obliterated all evidence. There was nothing but the most elementary particles exploding out.

Hawking is wrong. Philosophy is alive and kicking. Science has not replaced it, and never will. Because: science certainly hasn't provided all the answers; there's no way of knowing if it is capable of doing so, or if we're capable of understanding all of them; no matter what level of knowledge and understanding we reach, there is no way to rule out the possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent being created that level, and the philosophy will forever discuss that concept, as well as the many ideas that spring from that possibility (Why did God make it? Why did God make us? Etc)

As for your first paragraph, no, science does not 'elect' what to concern itself with. It is not a choice. Science looks at what is, and tries to figure out things like how it works and how it came to be. Science is looking into why there is something instead of nothing. It's just damned difficult at this point. Heck, for that matter, science would love nothing more than to study God. But there isn't any evidence to study; there aren't any experiments that reveal anything; no theories have been found to accurately predict anything; etc.

Post by **peter** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:55 pm

Thanks Fist - that's the sort of clarity even I can make sense of

. Now I can continue reading the book with at least some hope that I won't be completely wasting my time (though I was so out of my depth by about page 4 that this may be a real possibility). There has however been some interesting stuff on the concept of what constitutes 'true' knowledge (justified true belief etc) and how hard it is to demonstrate - if indeed possible at all. Also the 'mirror paradox' is fascinating in an odd sort of way - seems simple on the surface but when you try to explain it.......

Post by **Vraith** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:31 pm

peter wrote:the 'mirror paradox' is fascinating in an odd sort of way - seems simple on the surface but when you try to explain it.......

ummm...there isn't a mirror paradox, it is wholly explainable both mathematically and materially.

It's interesting though...the problem of true knowledge/justification/belief is exactly the point where Hawking's and Law's definitions of "why" do battle over territory...
There's "really" no there there...but somehow interesting stuff pops out of it.

Post by **peter** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:10 pm

Yes - Sorry Vraith, he calls it the 'mirror puzzle' not 'paradox'. My mistake. The man does have this to say of the puzzle before proposing a 'part' solution. "...so the puzzle has absolutely nothing to do with how light is reflected of the surface of the mirror. Indeed the puzzle is not a scientific one at all...", and again "...but it turns out that the mirror puzzle is a puzzle that science cannot solve. It seems that sometimes only philosophy woll do."

Incidentally I did read elsewhere that the root of the problem tends to lie with peoples erroneous belief that a mirror reverses left and right when in fact it reverses front to back, but this is about as far as I got to getting to the bottom of it

Post by **Vraith** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:43 pm

peter wrote: Incidentally I did read elsewhere that the root of the problem tends to lie with peoples erroneous belief that a mirror reverses left and right when in fact it reverses front to back, but this is about as far as I got to getting to the bottom of it

Yes...the mirror image looks exactly like it would if you somehow could be in two places at once and stepped forward to where the mirror is without turning around, then looked at yourself with eyes in the back of your head.

But he's just plain wrong that it isn't a science/math problem, and that it's not solvable by those means. And if it has nothing to do with light, then why is there any reflection at all instead of random images or no images? Why do flat and curved mirrors show different things? [it is possible with a convex mirror, for example, to...if you are in the right place...reverse top and bottom] In a way, it looks like it does as much because of reflected light you CAN't see as what you can...some follows a path from say your left shoulder to where your right shoulder is in the mirror...but when it bounces from the mirror there is no path back to your eye...you don't [can't] see it...you are never seeing all that is reflected, only a very limited amount. There are math solutions involving mapping the transformation, the shifting from 3 to 2 dimensions and crap...but it's above my pay-grade, and I don't think you need it...just tracing the mechanical behavior of light is enough.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Much Ado About Nothing