|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 5, 2010 22:54:02 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that it's moot, just not a slam dunk. And I didn't say that the universe "required" a cause. If the fact that it's possible for things to happen without a cause makes it a moot point to look for causes, then why do we bother searching for the cause of anything? Why, when the police show up at a crime scene and find someone dead do they not say, "Well, science has proven that things can happen without causes, so it's a moot point looking for a murderer"? Because in the VAST majority of cases, events have causes. As such, it seems to me that the most reasonable position is to assume any particular event has a cause unless shown to be otherwise. I realize the creation of the universe as we know it is in a whole different class of events than anything else we've observed, which is why I'm not as firmly convinced that it has a cause as I would be of any mundane case. But that is also why I think other people are equally full of it when they are so sure that it doesn't. The only reasonable answer, IMHO is, "I don't know." Right, but if the Universe was once in a particular state that is at a scale that we observe quantum phenomena at, then what we understand as 'causes' doesn't really apply, because classical understanding of causal relationships break down once you get to certain scales. The process by which the transition occurred, we can certainly work out, but for 'cause' of that transition, it isn't needed. And of course, if there were one, how would one go about finding it? So yeah, whilst I agree that the best answer is still "I don't know", we can still make good arguments against particular explanations based on what we do currently know about the Universe. In particular arguments for a 'cause' to the Universe, it can be explained otherwise. Not a slam dunk, but certainly showing that in certain states, it isn't required. No, I think I understood that quite well. My point is that what we call a "beginning" is always a type of transition. In the case of the universe, it might be a transition from non-existence to existence or it might be a transition from one form of existence to another. In either case, the question remains, "Why did the beginning/transition take place?" Okay, now I get you. I guess this is where we diverge because for me, "why" is not important, just the "how". Whilst "why" can be interpreted and speculated upon near indefinitely, the "how" is a lot more definite and testable. Understanding the process does not need to know the 'why', just the 'how'.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 1:05:17 GMT -5
When I said "why" in that instance, I didn't really mean it in the sense of "what is the purpose of it all" so much as "what is the process and/or cause of the event."
As far as whether the beginning of the universe had a cause, sometimes I lean towards yes and sometimes no. Ultimately, I think the answer is yes, but as I said, I draw that conclusion more from an emotional and intuitive level than from evidence and logic.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 6, 2010 12:54:19 GMT -5
When I said "why" in that instance, I didn't really mean it in the sense of "what is the purpose of it all" so much as "what is the process and/or cause of the event." Okay, but I try to distinguish the latter from the former by referring to such questions as 'how' questions, since for me, I tend to go mostly on the understanding of events and processes rather than speculate purpose or cause, if that makes sense. But moving on: As far as whether the beginning of the universe had a cause, sometimes I lean towards yes and sometimes no. Ultimately, I think the answer is yes, but as I said, I draw that conclusion more from an emotional and intuitive level than from evidence and logic. That is understandable, because on an emotional level, I can certainly understand the motivation. However, with regards to these things, I weigh more on the evidence and logic aspect of things, because my intuitive aspect is more often not correct on these matters. I guess that might make me quite the pragmatist, but on these matters, I rather put aside my emotions and weigh the cold, hard facts on their merit and evidence. To me (not implying anything on your part, just myself), if the reality does not 'comfort' me emotionally, then I just have to accept that as is. Emotion and intuition has its place, but not in this area in my view of things.
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Feb 6, 2010 13:04:47 GMT -5
Right, but if the Universe was once in a particular state that is at a scale that we observe quantum phenomena at, then what we understand as 'causes' doesn't really apply, because classical understanding of causal relationships break down once you get to certain scales. The process by which the transition occurred, we can certainly work out, but for 'cause' of that transition, it isn't needed. And of course, if there were one, how would one go about finding it? So yeah, whilst I agree that the best answer is still "I don't know", we can still make good arguments against particular explanations based on what we do currently know about the Universe. In particular arguments for a 'cause' to the Universe, it can be explained otherwise. Not a slam dunk, but certainly showing that in certain states, it isn't required. While I agree that's a valid point, it is making the assumption that the laws of quantum mechanics applies outside/before the universe. Would quantum phenomena apply before the rest of the laws of physics, or did they come about in the earliest moments of the Big Bang like our understanding of what happened with the rest of the laws of physics. But yeah, we really can never know, only make informed guesses.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 13:48:38 GMT -5
That is understandable, because on an emotional level, I can certainly understand the motivation. However, with regards to these things, I weigh more on the evidence and logic aspect of things, because my intuitive aspect is more often not correct on these matters. I guess that might make me quite the pragmatist, but on these matters, I rather put aside my emotions and weigh the cold, hard facts on their merit and evidence. To me (not implying anything on your part, just myself), if the reality does not 'comfort' me emotionally, then I just have to accept that as is. Emotion and intuition has its place, but not in this area in my view of things. I would agree in most cases, that if the facts aren't comforting, you can't just pretend they don't exist. But when it comes to questions like this, where we don't know the facts and maybe never will, believing what feels right intuitively or comforts you emotionally doesn't contradict known reality, because there is none. It's important though to hold such beliefs conditionally. There were a lot of things in the past that our ancestors didn't understand, so they made up stories about, but they became so attached to those stories that when new evidence started to contradict them, they refused to give them up. That's how we got creationists.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 6, 2010 14:07:51 GMT -5
I would agree in most cases, that if the facts aren't comforting, you can't just pretend they don't exist. But when it comes to questions like this, where we don't know the facts and maybe never will, believing what feels right intuitively or comforts you emotionally doesn't contradict known reality, because there is none. You already addressed that it is a problem when people refuse to give up their "facts," but there's more to this. You're still dealing with information that is likely to be completely and totally wrong, it is far safer to just say 'I don't know' and not try to add something there without justification. We already know that intuition is far from likely to be correct. There's also a very defeatist attitude about never knowing the facts, there is constantly being remarkable progress in all fields discovering more and more about the nature of the universe and existence. It may take a thousand years to find out, but remember, lightning used to be unfathomable. But, as somebody trained in science things, I find the idea of placing something as 'unknowable' quite odd.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Feb 6, 2010 14:36:22 GMT -5
There's also a very defeatist attitude about never knowing the facts, there is constantly being remarkable progress in all fields discovering more and more about the nature of the universe and existence. It may take a thousand years to find out, but remember, lightning used to be unfathomable. But, as somebody trained in science things, I find the idea of placing something as 'unknowable' quite odd. Some of the progress we are making is actually saying that we can never know things. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, from what I understand, isn't just an observation. It's actually a consequence of the way the quantum mechanics is set up, and unavoidable. Or something of the sort. Faster than light travel, in the sense of being able to outrun light, is also impossible as a consequence of math. That's not to say faster than light travel is impossible, but you have to cheat to get there (doing stuff such as warping space). Of course it's possible that relativity, or quantum mechanics is going to be proved wrong, but because they're so heavily math-based, it would mean a fundamental change in the theories. Those don't happen extremely often in physics, though I hope they will again. Because Heisenberg makes me uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Feb 6, 2010 15:35:29 GMT -5
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is because electrons are wimps that get pushed around by photons.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 17:45:18 GMT -5
I would agree in most cases, that if the facts aren't comforting, you can't just pretend they don't exist. But when it comes to questions like this, where we don't know the facts and maybe never will, believing what feels right intuitively or comforts you emotionally doesn't contradict known reality, because there is none. You already addressed that it is a problem when people refuse to give up their "facts," but there's more to this. You're still dealing with information that is likely to be completely and totally wrong, it is far safer to just say 'I don't know' and not try to add something there without justification. We already know that intuition is far from likely to be correct. There's also a very defeatist attitude about never knowing the facts, there is constantly being remarkable progress in all fields discovering more and more about the nature of the universe and existence. It may take a thousand years to find out, but remember, lightning used to be unfathomable. But, as somebody trained in science things, I find the idea of placing something as 'unknowable' quite odd. There are things that are unknowable, though. I'm not talking about stuff we don't know yet. I'm talking about stuff that by its very nature is impossible to prove or disprove. Bluefinger touched on it earlier, when he asked whether, if there WAS a higher intelligence behind existence, how would we be able to tell? How would we know? By extension, how could we know for sure if there WASN'T? I don't think we could. As such, it's unknowable.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 6, 2010 18:30:22 GMT -5
There are things that are unknowable, though. I'm not talking about stuff we don't know yet. I'm talking about stuff that by its very nature is impossible to prove or disprove. Bluefinger touched on it earlier, when he asked whether, if there WAS a higher intelligence behind existence, how would we be able to tell? How would we know? By extension, how could we know for sure if there WASN'T? I don't think we could. As such, it's unknowable. But just because they are 'unknowable', doesn't mean they can't be dismissed. Follow me for a sec. Let's say Y is hypothesised as being the reason why X exists. However, through a process of investigation, we come to ideas about the formation of X. Whilst the picture isn't complete, upto a certain point, we find that the processes that occurred with X do not require Y's influence. Also, the existence of Y holds a lot of assumptions that one is required to make in order to hold to the hypothesis of Y causing X. If what we know about X doesn't need Y, then... why hold onto the concept of Y at all? Especially if there are untestable assumptions about Y? It just then becomes an application of Occam's Razor. Just because it is 'unknowable', doesn't mean certain ideas regarding it can't be dismissed. While I agree that's a valid point, it is making the assumption that the laws of quantum mechanics applies outside/before the universe. Would quantum phenomena apply before the rest of the laws of physics, or did they come about in the earliest moments of the Big Bang like our understanding of what happened with the rest of the laws of physics. But yeah, we really can never know, only make informed guesses. I disagree heavily with the notion that we can 'never' really know, just because current physical models are insufficient past a certain point with regards to the investigation of the Universe at a specific point in time. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we will never know. It is just a matter of time. Simply put, I never said Quantum Mechanics applies outside of the Universe, and I stated quite clearly that what we think as the beginning of this Universe is not necessarily the true beginning. We don't know, but we are making strides in order to find out. All the processes we know happen within our Universe, and these processes are dependent on the state the Universe is in. The Universe was once at a very small and dense, energetic state, and as a consequence, the processes within it were quite different to what we see now, and upto a certain point, we have modelled the progression and transformation of these processes into what we see today. However, beyond that point, our models fail because we lack understanding in particular key areas that are required for further, more detailed models. For example, Quantum gravity and its effects, etc. Also a reason why we don't understand black holes THAT well. Also, remember, 'laws' in physics are descriptive, so when a 'law' doesn't apply at a particular timeframe in the Universe's past, it just means the processes were different, not that the 'laws of physics' as we know them do not apply at all. That is not to say we can't figure out how those processes worked back then, because we can simulate those conditions to a controlled degree inside particle accelerators. We have methods and the means, but do not have yet quite the understanding. But all that is needed is time and more research.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 19:19:22 GMT -5
There are things that are unknowable, though. I'm not talking about stuff we don't know yet. I'm talking about stuff that by its very nature is impossible to prove or disprove. Bluefinger touched on it earlier, when he asked whether, if there WAS a higher intelligence behind existence, how would we be able to tell? How would we know? By extension, how could we know for sure if there WASN'T? I don't think we could. As such, it's unknowable. But just because they are 'unknowable', doesn't mean they can't be dismissed. Follow me for a sec. Let's say Y is hypothesised as being the reason why X exists. However, through a process of investigation, we come to ideas about the formation of X. Whilst the picture isn't complete, upto a certain point, we find that the processes that occurred with X do not require Y's influence. Also, the existence of Y holds a lot of assumptions that one is required to make in order to hold to the hypothesis of Y causing X. If what we know about X doesn't need Y, then... why hold onto the concept of Y at all? Especially if there are untestable assumptions about Y? It just then becomes an application of Occam's Razor. Just because it is 'unknowable', doesn't mean certain ideas regarding it can't be dismissed. As far as scientific inquiry and understanding things on a practical level are concerned, I agree. But that's not all everyone is concerned about. Just because something is unknowable, doesn't mean it isn't important.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 6, 2010 20:29:44 GMT -5
As far as scientific inquiry and understanding things on a practical level are concerned, I agree. But that's not all everyone is concerned about. Just because something is unknowable, doesn't mean it isn't important. That may be for some people, but for me, if it is unknowable, then it is meaningless to me. If there is something that is proposed, but can't be measured, observed, tested, then it just doesn't exist because it can't be shown to exist in the first place. And I can say that with good reason. And if something can be explained without the need of that proposed unknowable thing, then I can remove the unknowable from the equation. Just because other people are different doesn't make my position 'full of it' or less valid. Sure, on an emotional level, you want there to be some sort of cause. I get that. But on my position, wants don't translate to reality, and that is something that I have accepted. Intuition, on these matters, is inaccurate and misleading. And whilst yes, with certain things "we don't know" is the best answer, I can still dismiss unknowable things on a pretty reliable basis.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 21:06:37 GMT -5
Just because other people are different doesn't make my position 'full of it' or less valid. I didn't say your position was less valid. In fact, I think I explicitly said that opinions other than mine are NOT necessarily any less valid than mine. I didn't say that my emotions or inuitions translated into reality. You're puting words into my mouth. If you're okay with that, that's fine for you. I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me. But for me, some of the most important things in life are immeasurable, indefineable and unknowable.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Feb 6, 2010 21:34:28 GMT -5
I didn't say that my emotions or inuitions translated into reality. You're puting words into my mouth. No, I was just talking about myself, not you. What I said is that you just felt/wanted it on an emotional level, nothing more. If you're okay with that, that's fine for you. I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me. But for me, some of the most important things in life are immeasurable, indefineable and unknowable.[/quote] Right, but for me, something that is unknowable is just something that can't experienced. How can that thing be important to you if it doesn't connect with you in any way? If I can't experience it, observe it, measure it, know it... then it is meaningless and unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Feb 6, 2010 21:44:56 GMT -5
If I can't experience it, observe it, measure it, know it... It's possible to experience and even "know" the immeasurable and the unprovable (unknowable in a scientific sense). We do it every day. To you. Not to everyone.
|
|