Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: Nobody really knows one way or another, of course.

Correct. Nobody knows one way or the other. However the multiverse crap gets aired a lot more than its viability suggests since the real movers and shakers in theoretical physics have always preferred the bounce cosmology as a more logical alternative. In recent years this has become even more the case. As Dubious suggests some hypotheses are more credible than others and at least the eternal and cyclical universe is soundly grounded metaphysically and has a few millennia of philosophy behind it. It is also a perfectly valid mathematical solution to Einstein's field equations in GR and accords perfectly with the empirical data on black hole entropy, which the "one-off" universe can not.

Obvious Leo wrote:As Dubious suggests some hypotheses are more credible than others and at least the eternal and cyclical universe is soundly grounded metaphysically and has a few millennia of philosophy behind it. It is also a perfectly valid mathematical solution to Einstein's field equations in GR and accords perfectly with the empirical data on black hole entropy, which the "one-off" universe can not.

The multiverse is a popular concept because it's theoretically possible. At one stage humanity believed there were no other lands but their own. Explorers found otherwise. We believed that stars were lights in a dark canopy but researchers - mental explorers - found otherwise. We that there were no other other galaxies until a faint smudge in a night sky was found to be Andromeda, not a nebula. Still, we believed there were no other planets until fairly recently. Every time humanity has set a limit on reality we find that the limits were only our own. So I remain open. It would seem that string theory remains the key to the existence of the multiverse or not.

My understanding is that so far the LHC has so far not been encouraging for string theory. However, Peter Higgs's ideas were disregarded for a long time until future developments raised the boson question again and subsequent testing verified his mathematical models. The trouble with string theory is, as with theism, it may prove impossible to entirely falsify, at least for a long time.

It makes metaphysical sense that events at the Planck scale will affect other scales but I don't know of another theory that as deeply considers reality at the smallest possible scale. Are there any other theories in the area?

As usual, consideration of the largest of scales relies heavily on knowledge gained from considering the nature of the smallest.

One of the stronger arguments for the existence of the multiverse is:

why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will be a bio-friendly universe like ours, however improbable that is.

Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain, for instance.

[size=85]http://www.nature.com/news/sci ... 0:0[/size]

There are two possibilities. String theory could be thought of as a randomised, mathematical approach. All configurations can be explored by reality but very few are viable, where universes would be akin to a shower of many thousands of jellyfish eggs, of which perhaps one or two will survive.

The other approach is more biologically based, or more correctly, breaking down the distinctions we normally make between geology and biology. That way the universe would seem like a multilayered, constantly metamorphosing entity, effectively containing ever "evolving" geology prior to a continuation of that evolution as "biology".

I had an idea recently I'd like to run past you. As far as I can tell, the evolution (using the word loosely) of both geology and biology involves the same process - constantly turning inside out. That's what interaction with environment is, a gradual process of turning inside out. Inflation. A full iteration of turning inside out is a lifespan, be it for a human, rock or universe. New iterations of cycled reality are augmented by the information of their predecessors, hence the arrow of evolution, despite outmoded Gouldian random models.

Locally, it would seem that every aspect of reality is in the process of turning inside out, all at different tempos. A "living" universe would be simply going through its processes like its inhabitants, more or less as any ecosystems do (although it remains to be seen whether the universe has an environment from which it draws energy). If you consider the notion of "geological life" (a roughly equivalent but different kind of "life"), the fact that the universe supports life seems less mysterious, to be expected, perhaps a predictable phase in universes just as any life will have predictable phases. If the universe is already quasi alive, then abiogenesis would seem inevitable.

I've used many inverted commas because I do know the formal criteria for life but, since we have no semantically satisfying language to describe dynamic systems that grow, develop through stages and die, if they lack cells, metabolisms, and don't reproduce with heritable characteristics.

What other possibilities are there to explain the fine tuning of cosmological constants? Either reality works differently at the largest of scales, allowing for exceptionally randomised universe possibilities in a multiverse, or the largest scales of reality are essentially of similar nature to its components, with each scale going through its own "living" and living cycles.

Greta. All of biology is nowadays regarded exclusively as an information science so no metaphysical distinction can be made between "living" and "non-living" matter. It's all about entropy. The only thing that distinguishes organic from inorganic matter is the complexity of the chemistry needed to describe the physical processes which such matter is able to engage in. Thus we speak in terms of increasing INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY as the inevitable outcome of all self-determining evolutionary processes. The total entropy DECREASES in self-determining systems and this is the bit that physics can't get. Physics remains transfixed in its Newtonian fantasy of a reality determined according to a suite of laws but this entire assumption is false. There are no such laws, no such constants, no such particles, waves, fields or forces. These are simply observer-defined constructs used to model a universe which is exclusively self-determining and EVOLVING from the simple to the complex.

The reason why the universe conforms so precisely to the suite of laws and constants which we observe is because if it didn't we'd change the fucking things.

I hope you can get where I'm coming from here. The multiverse hypothesis is founded on a completely circular argument which assumes as a premise that which it seeks to establish as a conclusion. It assumes that the universe had a beginning and this is an utterly unsustainable assumption.

Obvious Leo wrote:I hope you can get where I'm coming from here. The multiverse hypothesis is founded on a completely circular argument which assumes as a premise that which it seeks to establish as a conclusion. It assumes that the universe had a beginning and this is an utterly unsustainable assumption.

All cosmological models assume a beginning, especially the standard model. However, scientists are increasingly considering that the big bang was not the beginning of reality per se, that something existed beforehand. That, of course can lead to infinite regression which lends logical credence to the idea of eternal reality, in whatever form it may be in, in any given time or place.

Greta wrote: All cosmological models assume a beginning, especially the standard model.

No they don't, (and by the way the SM is not a cosmological model). The bang/crunch hypothesis has been around forever but it can't be made compatible with SR, despite the fact that it is a perfectly valid solution to the Friedman equations derived from GR.

If you think about it carefully you'll agree that it is only the universe with a beginning hypothesis which leads to an infinite regress, to say nothing of the fact that it violates both Cantorian set theory and the first law of thermodynamics. In addition to this it's been known for seventy years that the metric tensor field equations of GR are only approximations to a finite order of probability and that this probability function becomes less probabilistically precise as gravitational field strength increases. In other words most theorists now concede that the singularity is bollocks and this has profound consequences for big bang cosmology. In the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. It can slow down to an agonising crawl but it cannot grind to a complete halt. Ergo the big bang cannot have been the beginning of the universe because time cannot BEGIN.

Anyway bounce cosmology is the new black in theoretical physics and almost all of the most illustrious of the illuminati have got right behind it. Heraclitus would approve.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greta wrote: All cosmological models assume a beginning, especially the standard model.

No they don't, (and by the way the SM is not a cosmological model). The bang/crunch hypothesis has been around forever but it can't be made compatible with SR, despite the fact that it is a perfectly valid solution to the Friedman equations derived from GR.

If you think about it carefully you'll agree that it is only the universe with a beginning hypothesis which leads to an infinite regress, to say nothing of the fact that it violates both Cantorian set theory and the first law of thermodynamics. In addition to this it's been known for seventy years that the metric tensor field equations of GR are only approximations to a finite order of probability and that this probability function becomes less probabilistically precise as gravitational field strength increases. In other words most theorists now concede that the singularity is bollocks and this has profound consequences for big bang cosmology. In the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. It can slow down to an agonising crawl but it cannot grind to a complete halt. Ergo the big bang cannot have been the beginning of the universe because time cannot BEGIN.

Anyway bounce cosmology is the new black in theoretical physics and almost all of the most illustrious of the illuminati have got right behind it. Heraclitus would approve.

Leo, pardon if I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but didn't you relate time to gravity? So, when you say time cannot begin, would that also be true of gravity? I'm just trying to get it.

Greta wrote:All cosmological models assume a beginning, especially the standard model.

Obvious Leo wrote:No they don't, (and by the way the SM is not a cosmological model). The bang/crunch hypothesis has been around forever but it can't be made compatible with SR, despite the fact that it is a perfectly valid solution to the Friedman equations derived from GR.

Fair enough. I should have said "big bang models". Do any models postulate no big bang?

Obvious Leo wrote:In other words most theorists now concede that the singularity is bollocks and this has profound consequences for big bang cosmology. In the absence of a singularity time cannot stand still. It can slow down to an agonising crawl but it cannot grind to a complete halt. Ergo the big bang cannot have been the beginning of the universe because time cannot BEGIN.

So you are suggesting that a singularity is a theoretical construct and the reality was that there was once something very much like the theorised singularity, but not quite?

Obvious Leo wrote:Anyway bounce cosmology is the new black in theoretical physics and almost all of the most illustrious of the illuminati have got right behind it. Heraclitus would approve.

The big bounce has been in and out of favour. My understanding is that Hubble's redshift observations (whose interpretation you refute) ruled out the idea of gravity collapsing the universe back on itself. So if the universe dissipates into complete disorder in a big freeze where does the bounce come from?

Dalek Prime wrote: Leo, pardon if I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but didn't you relate time to gravity? So, when you say time cannot begin, would that also be true of gravity? I'm just trying to get it.

Yes, mate. This must be equally true of gravity. Time and gravity are just two different metrics for expressing the same physical phenomenon, which is the rate of change in a physical system, which is linearly equated with the speed of light according to E= mcc.

Greta wrote: Fair enough. I should have said "big bang models". Do any models postulate no big bang?

None that I know of which accord with the empirical data. The big bang appears to be rock solid even though the proposition that it was the "beginning" of the universe is more than a little shaky.

Greta wrote:So you are suggesting that a singularity is a theoretical construct and the reality was that there was once something very much like the theorised singularity, but not quite?

Yes. The singularity was always known to be an unrealalisable extension of the Einstein field equations beyond their domain of applicability and this was acknowledged by Einstein himself. It was latterly confirmed by Hawking, Maldacena and Susskind using different mathematical approaches but they needn't have wasted their ingenuity because Georg Cantor had already proven a century earlier that an infinite set could nor be contained within a finite one. The singularity is a mathematical construct but it cannot be a physical construct because it conflicts with the philosophy of the quantum, which was unequivocably proven by Planck in his work on black body radiation.

Greta wrote: The big bounce has been in and out of favour. My understanding is that Hubble's redshift observations (whose interpretation you refute) ruled out the idea of gravity collapsing the universe back on itself. So if the universe dissipates into complete disorder in a big freeze where does the bounce come from?

Show me the money, Greta. Where is the evidence that the total entropy of the universe is increasing? Every scrap of evidence we have suggests that the exact opposite is occurring and the most telling piece of evidence of all is the fact that you and I are having a chat about this.

Greta wrote:The big bounce has been in and out of favour. My understanding is that Hubble's redshift observations (whose interpretation you refute) ruled out the idea of gravity collapsing the universe back on itself. So if the universe dissipates into complete disorder in a big freeze where does the bounce come from?

Obvious Leo wrote:Show me the money, Greta. Where is the evidence that the total entropy of the universe is increasing? Every scrap of evidence we have suggests that the exact opposite is occurring and the most telling piece of evidence of all is the fact that you and I are having a chat about this.

My understanding of mainstream physicists' views is that life forms combat entropy in their bodies by adding to the entropy of their environment, eg. predation. It seems logical enough to me. The increase in entropy inflicted on the environment by life must be greater than the decrease in entropy of the living system, because the living systems are not 100% efficient.

In a best case scenario life in the universe could become extremely advanced, orderly and organised but surely even the works of beings with sci fi-like intergalactic communications networks would still end up being effectively oases of low entropy in an ever more disordered environment?

Greta wrote:My understanding of mainstream physicists' views is that life forms combat entropy in their bodies by adding to the entropy of their environment, eg. predation. It seems logical enough to me. The increase in entropy inflicted on the environment by life must be greater than the decrease in entropy of the living system, because the living systems are not 100% efficient.

Excuse unwanted incursion, but this interests me. How does predation increase the entropy of the environment? Recently, I saw a documentary about salmon. They swim up the long, long river, getting picked off by wolves, eagles and bears along the way. The bodies of the salmon, which would die soon anyway, are sustaining thousands of these big, complex creatures and their generations. Whatever salmon doesn't get eaten becomes Grade A fertilizer for the trees, shrubs, flowers, berries and grasses that sustain millions of other life-forms and their generations. Each individual biological entity may be inefficient, but the system is neither sloppy nor wasteful.

In a best case scenario life in the universe could become extremely advanced, orderly and organised but surely even the works of beings with sci fi-like intergalactic communications networks would still end up being effectively oases of low entropy in an ever more disordered environment?

What percent of the universe is life? Not very big, I'd imagine. How much does its presence effect the universe as a whole?
I don't claim to know this stuff, but it would seem to me, that increasing order in the universe gives rise to life, not the other way around. ?

You handled Greta's question perfectly, skip. The overall entropy of our planet has decreased remarkably and continuously for the 4.5 billion years since it's been around. It has steadily and inexorably evolved more and more informationally complex structures within itself and there is no reason to suppose that it won't continue to do so. If we don't wipe ourselves out in our own self-imposed Armageddon homo sapiens will even have a say in how this more highly ordered representation of reality will be manifested. Our planet still has a few billion good years left in her before she becomes uncomfortably hot so if we're really on our game this is ample time for us to bring life to the entire galaxy. Naturally the universe doesn't give a shit one way or the other. If we don't do this then somebody else will because evolution from the simple to the complex is the fundamental organising principle of all self-causal systems. The universe has come to life because it could not do otherwise and this is a truth bigger than god. We are a cosmic seed which may or may not germinate but the universe itself is a mindless automaton which is no doubt profligate in the way such seeds are cast.

I have a Eucalyptus Viminalis in my garden and these trees are known to produce over a trillion seeds in the course of their lifetime. At best only a handful will ever themselves get to reproduce and the tree itself couldn't care less. It just does what it does.

Obvious Leo wrote:You handled Greta's question perfectly, skip. The overall entropy of our planet has decreased remarkably and continuously for the 4.5 billion years since it's been around.

There's a fundamental distinction, one that MUST be made, between the entropy of a planet which depends upon conditions being right for advancing complexity depending upon the energy of the sun to power it and keep it going AND the overall entropy in the universe as a whole. The two are not on same level playing field. It's allowable that the former decreases while the latter increases. You cannot decrease entropy without increasing it somewhere else.

Greta wrote:My understanding of mainstream physicists' views is that life forms combat entropy in their bodies by adding to the entropy of their environment, eg. predation. It seems logical enough to me. The increase in entropy inflicted on the environment by life must be greater than the decrease in entropy of the living system, because the living systems are not 100% efficient.

Skip wrote:Excuse unwanted incursion, but this interests me. How does predation increase the entropy of the environment? Recently, I saw a documentary about salmon. They swim up the long, long river, getting picked off by wolves, eagles and bears along the way. The bodies of the salmon, which would die soon anyway, are sustaining thousands of these big, complex creatures and their generations. Whatever salmon doesn't get eaten becomes Grade A fertilizer for the trees, shrubs, flowers, berries and grasses that sustain millions of other life-forms and their generations. Each individual biological entity may be inefficient, but the system is neither sloppy nor wasteful.

Your "incursion" is welcome, Skip :) Consider the bear and salmon. The bear needs energy to maintain its system, with its body's needs expressed as hunger. Hunger compels the bear to satisfy its energy needs so it catches a salmon and inflicts entropy on the fish's system, reducing an ordered living system to relatively disordered components.

To take the example further afield, the entropic defiance of the planet Earth comes at the expense of its surrounds. This has always been the case since the planet cleared its space within the disordered proto-planetary cloud. The Earth consumes ordered protons photons from the Sun, which convert to more disordered heat on impact. More locally, we have created some concentrated entropic areas closer to home such as the space junk orbital cloud, the Great Pacific Garbage patch, and other areas of toxic concentration and desertification.

The order of human civilisations inflicts entropy on its surroundings as it gathers energy from surrounding sources to maintain itself, power our ever more inventive attempts at keeping entropy at bay. So we create ever more dense concentrations of low entropy (cities) surrounded by ever more chaotic surrounds (broken ecosystems).

In a best case scenario life in the universe could become extremely advanced, orderly and organised but surely even the works of beings with sci fi-like intergalactic communications networks would still end up being effectively oases of low entropy in an ever more disordered environment?

Skip wrote:What percent of the universe is life? Not very big, I'd imagine. How much does its presence effect the universe as a whole?
I don't claim to know this stuff, but it would seem to me, that increasing order in the universe gives rise to life, not the other way around. ?

The increasing order we observe on Earth would seem more likely to be an example of concentrated local order with concomitant dissipated disorder rather than one of general reduced entropy.

Greta wrote: Consider the bear and salmon. The bear needs energy to maintain its system, with its body's needs expressed as hunger. Hunger compels the bear to satisfy its energy needs so it catches a salmon and inflicts entropy on the fish's system, reducing an ordered living system to relatively disordered components.

Yes, but this was my problem in the first place: are they disordered? The salmon was going to die in a week anyway, and presumably break down to its original components. Those molecules are not chaotic: they are highly disciplined little systems on their own. When they recombine in the form of moss, jack pines and Monarch butterflies, they will still be highly disciplined little systems, subordinated to larger, more complex systems. And they'll do it again after the butterfly and tree die. That they are subsumed by a bear or wolf or man is incidental: in any case, nothing is wasted and nothing is lost. The bear, wolf and man will also die eventually and return their components to the pool.

To take the example further afield, the entropic defiance of the planet Earth comes at the expense of its surrounds.

I don't understand what Earth does that qualifies as defiance. It orbits and rotates, just like any other planet. Do you mean having life? That's exceptional (afawk), but what's the cost to and who pays it? We haven't taken big chunks off the moon to damage it.

The Earth consumes ordered protons photons from the Sun, which convert to more disordered heat on impact.

Don't all planets and moons and asteroids do that? I don't think Earth is grabbing more than its share. And what would happen to the photons if there wasn't a planet in the way? Where are they missed?

More locally, we have created some concentrated entropic areas closer to home such as the space junk orbital cloud, the Great Pacific Garbage patch, and other areas of toxic concentration and desertification.

Space junk? Yes, I agree, that's an anomaly. So far, it hasn't proved much of a hazard to galactic navigation, perhaps because we're not in a high-traffic area. I can see that, if we were, and interstellar cruisers kept breaking up and adding more junk ... yes, that would create a widening problem. But if there is only our junk, won't it all (minus a couple of long-range probes) eventually fall down and rejoin the planet from which their components were mined?

The order of human civilisations inflicts entropy on its surroundings as it gathers energy from surrounding sources to maintain itself, power our ever more inventive attempts at keeping entropy at bay. So we create ever more dense concentrations of low entropy (cities) surrounded by ever more chaotic surrounds (broken ecosystems).

Yes, I do see that. Unevenly spread entropy. Still, it's only a thin layer on the outside of an insignificant planet, that won't even impede the path of the smallest meteor. Once we're gone, and everything on the planet is dead, this mudball can stop being defiant, like Mars.

The increasing order we observe on Earth would seem more likely to be an example of concentrated local order with concomitant dissipated disorder rather than one of general reduced entropy.

But only if it spread! If it arises, flourishes, overextends itself, destroys its source of nourishment and goes extinct, all on a single satellite of one minor star, done and dusted in a few million years.... Well, so what? The universe won't even be dented.

But at least it will have been less boring for a minute! What's the point of perfect order nobody appreciates?