Kevin's Watch

Saw a program the other day in which astrophysisist Brian Cox explained that it was the second law of thermodynamics that drove the arrow of time to travel in only one direction, and that like it or not that that meant for the vast majority of it's existence the universe would be a uniform, dead place where nothing but nothing went on. To sugar this bitter pill he said and I (pretty much) qoute " Well, you might ask, couldn't the universe have been designed differently, and the answer is no, not if you wanted there to be life in it".
Now correct me if I'm wrong but is that or is that not just about the most teleological statement you could make re the creation and subsequent evolution of the universe - and that coming from a CERN employed physisist - even if the guy was making a popular science program for the BBC.
Why is it I ask myself that these persistently embaressing questions such as 'why THIS universe and 'What about the setting of the universal constants' always backfoot scientists and either make them make mistakes such as Cox's or shuffle about embarasedly from foot to foot. Is there something they are not telling us?

In my experience, it comes from knowing from sad experience that whatever you say, it'll go over the heads of the people asking the question. These people aren't interested in the actual basic science of the matter, let alone the actual answer, they just want to (generally) score a point against science. Once this realization is discovered, you shift from foot-to-foot (avoid the question) or just answer in an overly simplified way (like Brian Cox did here). All this is to avoid telling the person he/she is a moron.

I don't think it's really teleological. He's correct that there couldn't be life of our kind in a different physics, so might have gone too far or simply left out the clarification. But he did NOT say...at least as quoted... that life is in any way related to the universe's purpose, or that the universe even has a purpose.

I dunno...he's right isn't he? Insofar as there wouldn't be life without entropy.

I don't know if that's proof that time only travels in one direction though...

--A

Alas Orlion - I must number myself among the 'morons' over whose shallow and sloping forehead the 'actual basic science' of the matter would no doubt pass (qiuck point; was the implication that these people were too dumb or not interested - seemed to be a bit of of a mix there to me), but if I'm correct you are implying that these questions have at least now been answered, it's just that the answers cannot be framed in such a way as to be comprehensible to the non-mathmetician.

I have no particular axe to grind, scientific or religious, but it does seem to me that if science is to take down God ( and it is after all that way that all the salvo's are going these days - it's a long time since religion gave up it's attempt to take down science) that it must at least get it's act together in terms of the language it uses when it attempts to explain what are granted, very difficult ideas to the non professional.

And I really am interested as to whether these questions have been answered or not, even if I could not understand the full complexity of the actual science, purely from a philosophical standpoint. ie Can we get to a point where all the questions are answered, where we can really say 'yes - we understand how we are here, we understand the primary cause for existence ( or we have demonstrated that no first cause is needed). If you as a scientist can tell me that this is so then I will believe you. I will not require to understand how it is that you know these things - just that it is so. Then am I not in a better position to frame my (albeit simple) worldview.

Vraith, a little later he used the phrase (not original I know) that we are the means by which the universe experiences itself - and I think this is like it or not going the way of a teleological argument.

Avatr - he didn't say entropy was proof that time only goes in one direction - he said it was the REASON time went only in one direction; that because the entropy of the universe had always to increase, that time could only ever go in the direction that entropy was increasing (I hope I'm explaining it as he did or I may be doing the guy a diservice).

Avatar wrote:I dunno...he's right isn't he? Insofar as there wouldn't be life without entropy.

I don't know if that's proof that time only travels in one direction though...

--A

There are lots of different formulations of the second law, but however one states it energy cannot go from lower states to higher states [even where it appears to, there is an overall drop in energy state...if it looks like there isn't, you are missing/leaving out something]. Time going the other way, by definition, would require energy changing from lower to higher states.

Peter: heh...it does look like he's going a little mystical if he said that, and certainly holding hands with teleology. I think life IS how the universe experiences itself in an odd, small, and limited way...but that doesn't mean that was its purpose, that it was made that way, or that it cares.

Vraith wrote:Time going the other way, by definition, would require energy changing from lower to higher states.

Hmmm, I think we were talking about different things there. You were talking about time reversing itself, undoing stuff back into what it was before.

I was talking about changing our position relative to time. Something quite different.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Vraith wrote:Time going the other way, by definition, would require energy changing from lower to higher states.

Hmmm, I think we were talking about different things there. You were talking about time reversing itself, undoing stuff back into what it was before.

I was talking about changing our position relative to time. Something quite different.

--A

That is a bit different, but I was talking about the time flow itself cuz he was.
YOUR kind of time travel...there is some math that allows it as possible [though nothing shows it possible as a naturally occurring event AFAIK...at least above the quantum scale], but the conditions are exotic to say the least, and require huge energy input...and it sort of dodges down a back alley, rather than backwards through time. [metaphorically, and in my admittedly limited understanding].

peter wrote:Alas Orlion - I must number myself among the 'morons' over whose shallow and sloping forehead the 'actual basic science' of the matter would no doubt pass (qiuck point; was the implication that these people were too dumb or not interested - seemed to be a bit of of a mix there to me), but if I'm correct you are implying that these questions have at least now been answered, it's just that the answers cannot be framed in such a way as to be comprehensible to the non-mathmetician.

My main implication is that scientists meet people like Bill O'Reilly who ask, "How did the moon get there?" and think they've scored a point or people like Ben Stein who think Intelligent Design is as legitimate a science as evolution. I call it willful ignorance, you can call it what you well.
Math is the language of science. Anything scientific can not be explained fully without it. Heisenberg of uncertain fame once stated that stating light has a wave/particle duality was more of an analogy that couldn't possible cover what was going on in quantum mechanics, even though all the math checked out and mathematically, light was explained just fine.
Does science have the answers to the beginning? No. Even the Big Bang theory is not a theory of the beginning of the universe, it more describes why the universe is expanding. Scientists don't like to get to this point because the people they end up saying this to tend to say, "Aha! So Jesus did die for our sins!" Such an interaction creates for very charged dialogue.

I have no particular axe to grind, scientific or religious, but it does seem to me that if science is to take down God ( and it is after all that way that all the salvo's are going these days - it's a long time since religion gave up it's attempt to take down science) that it must at least get it's act together in terms of the language it uses when it attempts to explain what are granted, very difficult ideas to the non professional.

The problem is, in the US anyway, religions are trying to "take down" science... or trying to make their superstitions presented to be just as valid and functional as science.
As far as language, nothing existed in language to describe light (for example) that wasn't mathematical. We now have photons, quanta, and electromagnetic. It's not our fault if you non professionals haven't integrated these terms into everyday use

And I really am interested as to whether these questions have been answered or not, even if I could not understand the full complexity of the actual science, purely from a philosophical standpoint. ie Can we get to a point where all the questions are answered, where we can really say 'yes - we understand how we are here, we understand the primary cause for existence ( or we have demonstrated that no first cause is needed). If you as a scientist can tell me that this is so then I will believe you. I will not require to understand how it is that you know these things - just that it is so. Then am I not in a better position to frame my (albeit simple) worldview.

Depends on what you are saying. I don't think we needed a first cause, as it were (i.e. from the Big Bang, I think it perfectly believable that everything following afterward was incidental).

Beyond that is beyond my limited expertise.

To conclude, I don't mind trying to talk about the science I know as clearly as I can, but when I'm surrounded by arrogant people who think it's impossible that we can know the molecular structure of chemicals by shining light on them and seeing how that light changed even though they have a hard enough time adding numbers together... grrr.... (not saying anyone here is like that, I'm just surrounded by them here in the good ol' USA.)

Hahaha, I have a hard time adding numbers together.

I don't think science is trying to take down god. However, it may do so as an unintended side-effect. Or at least, show that there is no requirement for one.

I do agree with Peter though that it's rather annoying that we have to spend 20 years studying mathematics in order to understand why this stuff is supposed to be true.

The problem is that mathematics is the most simple way of explaining it. They say in a page of equations what you might need many thousands of words to explain badly, linguistically.

--A

Alas ignorance and stupidity are things that have to be dealt with in all walks of life - so yes, anyone who is incapable of understanding that scientific statements are not the same as the statements of 'ordinary language' (in that they have to be verifiable and repeatable in a manner that ordinary statements do not) is bound to get under your skin. ie if a scientist says 'from the scattering of these X-rays in this way I can say that this molecule has this shape', then he will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his peers that what he says is true . The honing of the scientific method over the past 350 years has povided a means by which such statements can be tested to destruction and beyond and so to deny the validity of scientific statements purely because of a lack of understanding of this is folly in the extreme and rightly deserves to be treated with contempt.

To set such doctrines as 'Creationalism' and 'Intelligent Desighn' alongside Cosmology, Evolution etc as 'Sciences' whose statements should be considered in the same way and with the same 'confidence' is of course to completely fail to understand the distinction between Metaphysics and Science. The 'falsification' idea between melaphysical and scientific statements is not a difficult one to grasp but a suprising number of people do not seem to get it. Again it becomes difficult to converse with someone who deliberately or otherwise will not accede to this difference. Agreed in the USA the movements to have such doctrines as Creationalism and ID taught alongside the sciences they would ape are a nonsense. In the UK we have a somewhat different situation where Professor Richard Dawkins is spearheading a campaign to erradicate all religion (no less), principally via the message of his attrocious book 'The God Delusion' (a work so shot through with logical incosistency that any scientist worth his salt should hang his head in shame to be found in the same room as it).

I completely agree with the limitations that not being a mathmetician places on the understanding of physics at it's furthest reaches - almost to the point where it becomes a wasted exercise to blunder into this exclusive world. However popular science programs are made and the lay public watch them - and thus the scientific community must share some of the blame for inviting comment in areas where it is a given that their audience will not understand them. If no comment is required then the scource of those comments ie the well recieved (and no doubt well paid) market in popular science which is fed by celebrity scientists sich as Cox and Dawkins, should be plugged.

I wanted to sum up with a nice simple little paragraph about science being a dicipline designed to answer certain kinds of questions in a certain way and that for some people there will always be questions that do not fit into the box of science's remit but it strikes me that I long ago forgot what the hell this is all about............

Ah, the eternal conundrum...what the hell was I talking about?

--A

Nothing teleological about Brian Cox and his "if the smallest constant had been a fraction different, life wouldn't exist" statement.

Now I'm no astrophysicist - unlike Bryan May the Queen guitarist or Ben Miller the TV sketch show comic (yes, really). Moreover, I learned way WAY more about modern scientific thinking from reading the brilliant Bill Bryson's utterly stunning "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" than from any other source - if you haven't read this book, blush in shame and do so immediately.

The fallacy is related to the Goldilocks premise - according to what we understand, we couldn't have existed in a universe governed by other physical laws. However, just because this universe happens to be "just right", it absolutely does not follow that the universe was therefore designed for us. The result doesn't give rise to any purpose.

TheFallen wrote: The fallacy is related to the Goldilocks premise - according to what we understand, we couldn't have existed in a universe governed by other physical laws. However, just because this universe happens to be "just right", it absolutely does not follow that the universe was therefore designed for us. The result doesn't give rise to any purpose.

Yep. I might have said elsewhere, the universe isn't made perfect for us, it is what it is...we are adapted to it, not the other way round.

TheFallen wrote:Nothing teleological about Brian Cox and his "if the smallest constant had been a fraction different, life wouldn't exist" statement.

What about the 'Not if you wanted there to be life in it' statement which is the one I was refering to?

Incidentally TF, yes I have read 'A Short History.....', Very good book and nicely done. Trouble with it I think is that he plays it too much for the laughs. There is nothing wrong with that for the audience for which it was intended, and the book is very informative - but for the grown up version of the same book (sorry TF I don't mean that in a bad way - just a much longer more serious treatment, but done in the same way) try 'Asimov's Guide to Science'. That book is a masterpiece and though it may be a little dated in some few areas, the story it tells is beautifully presented with a richness of detail that can't be faulted.

Thing's can only get better

Prof Brian Cox appears at about 2:40 (he's the keyboard player for D'Ream)

I have to say he's a better TV presenter than he is musician (assuming this was the limits of his musical talent which may be unfair). The interesting thing will be whether he now leaves the hallowed (but poorly paid) halls of academia for the bright (and very well paid) lights of TV stardom. Whatever the case, best of luck to him. The programs were well made, informative and BEAUTIFUL to watch.