Why Is the Universe Comprehensible?

[JoeDawg]

There isn't really any way for life to disappear completely.

That's unfounded opinion.
An out of control greenhouse effect could turn our planet into venus.
We only really have one biosphere to observe. So making claims about its persistence is an argument from ignorance. We know Life is resilient within certain parameters... and we know everything dies, even whole eco-systems.

Implying the world is fine tuned for life or us, is pure ego.

 

[WaveJumper]

This may be true for the last 200,000 years that we as modern humans have existed, but what about the 13 billion or so years before that?

'Time" is a very big problem not only in philosophy but in physics. In our relativistic universe, your Present is also a collection of infinite points in the past. That's how we we trace back the early history of the universe via the CMBR(a kind of afterglow). Our antennas pick up signals from around 380 000 years after the Big Bang, and we are kind of looking 13.7 billion years into the past now. Your now isn't special in relativity theory in any way. What you perceive as NOW may lie in the future for another observer and in the past for a different observer in another reference frame. There is no way to definitively identify a particular point in universal time as "the Present".

Ask a physicists - Where is the present? and you'll get the "it depends on your frame of reference".In fact, there is no fundamental reason why a particular "present" should be more valid than any other. They all(past, present and future) exist simultaneously at the same time.

I know you don't want to think about that, but someone in another frame of reference could be in your future tomorrow, and had he a really large telescope he would see you now but really he'd see you now as you would live tomorrow(whatever happens tomorrow for you, he'd see it now). Yes it strongly implies that your tomorrow has already passed, but such is life.

"Time" in quantum theory is even more slippery and almost non-existent.

Having said that, i would not judge a model of existence on how we perceive time(as it's twisted, misleading and wrong).

How can an objectively existent universe exist objectively, if there is forever no one to perceive it? Our case(our universe) is special because it has "given birth" to observers but to believe the universe has existed before our arrival involves a kind of assumption that not only materialism is correct but also realism and locality and these are hotly disputed among physicists themselves. Defining this "before" proves to be a very difficult task in science, Time is an elusive concept and maybe it will not be fully explained and accounted for without delving into whatever it is, that is taking place in our heads.

 

[WaveJumper]

That's unfounded opinion.
An out of control greenhouse effect could turn our planet into venus.
We only really have one biosphere to observe. So making claims about its persistence is an argument from ignorance. We know Life is resilient within certain parameters... and we know everything dies, even whole eco-systems.

4.5 billion years of life is quite a lot. Let me spell it - that's 4 500 000 000 years. You are saying this somehow hints that Life could disappear altogether because of greenhouse effects? I am sure you can do better than that. (Jeez, 4.5 billion years is almost half the age of the universe)

Implying the world is fine tuned for life or us, is pure ego.

I am not implying it, i was stating it. There is no explanation for the infinitely low entropy of the very early universe. Science cannot explain this, and i'd say you've now left science and you are even passing from philosophy over to theology.

 

[JoeDawg]

4.5 billion years of life is quite a lot.

One one small planet around a average sized star, in the *** end of one of who knows how many galaxies... Keep trying.

I am not implying it, i was stating it. There is no explanation for the infinitely low entropy of the very early universe. Science cannot explain this, and i'd say you've now left science and you are even passing from philosophy over to theology.

You left science light years ago with your creationist 'statements'.

 

[WaveJumper]

You left science light years ago with your creationist 'statements'.

Science isn't really a religion, if you are looking for all answers science isn't of much help and you have 2 options:

1. Believe what fellow atheists/theists believe.

2. Doubt everything and follow your own path.

I guess it's a kind of personal preference. BTW, i never made a "statement", that would be typical of your school of thought or of theism. I always use "It implies", "it appears", "theory says", "it points to", etc. As opposed to atheism or theism, i am not claiming to have the one Final answer. Maybe a brain wash would change that fast.BTW, science doesn't say if there is a god or not(and i am doubtful of his existence the way i can imagine such a "being"/force, unless it's a scientist/s from some other space-like medium). Science only shows how life evolved not why it exists or why the universe exists or why there is something instead of nothing. Our science is still in diapers and it's a very inadequate tool to disprove all concepts of god.

 

[JoeDawg]

Science isn't really a religion

Science isn't, but your posts are full of it.

1. Believe what fellow atheists/theists believe.
2. Doubt everything and follow your own path.

False dilemma.

BTW, i never made a "statement", that would be typical of your school of thought or of theism.

Yes you did.

The fact that the universe appears so finely tuned for life

It doesn't appear to be anything of the sort, this is standard intelligent design mumbo jumbo. Earth is the only place so far that we have found life. The universe is much bigger.

BTW, science doesn't say if there is a god or not

Actually neuroscience and psychology, as well as sociology and the logical inconsistencies inherent in religious claims say quite a lot about religion. If you wish to believe in spite of the evidence that's your right, but science has been making mince meat of theological claims for centuries. That does IMPLY something about religious belief.

 

[WaveJumper]

Science isn't really a religion.

Science isn't, but your posts are full of it.

Huh? Was i the one who "knew" if there is god or not? Only the forever ignorant know the answer to this question.

1. Believe what fellow atheists/theists believe.

2. Doubt everything and follow your own path.

False dilemma.

There is no dilemma for the "knowing". It's really pointless to argue against creationists or atheists dogma.

Actually neuroscience and psychology, as well as sociology and the logical inconsistencies inherent in religious claims say quite a lot about religion. If you wish to believe in spite of the evidence that's your right, but science has been making mince meat of theological claims for centuries. That does IMPLY something about religious belief.

The idea of an intelligent Architect behind the structure and existence of the universe is very far from the flying Jesus or the talking snake handing out fruit and the like. I have no idea why you'd think i believe in that crap? As far as I am concerned, religion is dead. This however doesn't mean that you or your fellow atheists have the correct answers. Which ultimately proves the saying that people always need something to believe in.

It would be really weird if you tried to disprove the idea of an Architect of the universe by basing your conclusion on the scientific knowledge derived from this same bafflingly comprehensible universe.

 

[JoeDawg]

Huh? Was i the one who "knew" if there is god or not?

The evidence is against it.

There is no dilemma for the "knowing".

Do you know what a false dilemma is? Sigh.

The idea of an intelligent Architect...

Is a god of the gaps solution to the problem of science encroaching on supernaturalism and superstition. ID is an argument from ignorance.

If you make a claim that something exists, the onus is on you to show it is so, not on those who think you're a nutter.

 

[WaveJumper]

Huh? Was i the one who "knew" if there is god or not?

The evidence is against it.

There is evidence? Funny how you atheists never question your sources. Where did you get this "evidence" from? Wasn't it from our weirdly comprehensible universe? How come in this "random" universe there is evidence to be found against an Architect of the universe?

And are you aware that our physical, material universe is just the manifestation of four forces? Did you know that all the matter in the universe, as far as we are concerned, is really nothing but the manifestation of electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong forces? Why is there so much meaning, order and information to be perceived and comprehended in this "random" universe of forces that create the illusion of solid, physical matter?

Is a god of the gaps solution to the problem of science encroaching on supernaturalism and superstition. ID is an argument from ignorance.

If you make a claim that something exists, the onus is on you to show it is so, not on those who think you're a nutter.

Oh, you are implying that our knowledge is so vast that there are only gaps before we seal off a full picture of existence and prove how and why everything is. You couldn't be further from the truth. Even if in 3000 years humans explain some disturbingly weird facts, how come humans will be able to explain everything? I'd say you are falling in your own trap because your position is both inconsistent with the observations and it becomes circular reasoning at its core. Even if there is no god/architect, something is missing from your picture, something that can account for all observations.

 

[JoeDawg]

Funny how you atheists never question your sources.

Right... the chip on your shoulder has officially bored me.
Bye.

 

[WaveJumper]

here is another path that could possibly explain why the universe and the laws of physics are fine tuned for the emergence and existence of galaxies, planets and life and why the universe is comprehensible.

The idea is of British physicist Edward Harrison and it's a further development of the idea that the universe might be alive in some sense. It says that there are probably countless other life-bearing universes that have a special ability: the ability to reproduce. Specifically, Harrison is suggesting that intelligent life actually makes new universes through laboratory-made big bangs.

"If so, then in offspring universes which are fit for life, new life evolves to a high level of intelligence, then creates further universes" according to Harrison.

"It's conceivable that more intelligent beings--perhaps even our own descendants in the far future--might possesses not only the knowledge but also the technology to build universes" says Harrison.
In Harrison's theory, dubbed the “natural selection of universes”, the laws of physics most suited for the emergence and evolution of life are "naturally" selected by life itself. I'd say this kind of puts science back on track in the research of the creation/emergence of the universe the way it is.

 

[petm1]

'Time" is a very big problem not only in philosophy but in physics.

Don't worry about this problem it will untangle in time because time is dimensionless and every measurement we make is a measure of time in one form or another.

There is no way to definitively identify a particular point in universal time as "the Present".

Except via an observer. Locally every point has it's own present and it is where all these presents overlap within and around every observer that makes up the global time we measure with a clock.

In fact, there is no fundamental reason why a particular "present" should be more valid than any other. They all(past, present and future) exist simultaneously at the same time.

IMHO there is only the present and it is the past and future that exist only in our minds.

 

[Kronos5253]

Ask a physicists - Where is the present? and you'll get the "it depends on your frame of reference".


In fact, there is no fundamental reason why a particular "present" should be more valid than any other. They all(past, present and future) #1) exist simultaneously at the same time.

I know you don't want to think about that, but someone in another frame of reference could be in your future tomorrow, and had he a really large telescope he would see you now but really he'd see you now as you would live tomorrow(whatever happens tomorrow for you, he'd see it now). #2) Yes it strongly implies that your tomorrow has already passed, but such is life.

I disagree..

Yes I agree they do, but the future is only there in small segments, just because of the time it takes for light to reach your eye and your brain to make sense of it. Aside from that, the future isn't determined. Someone can't observe what you'll do tomorrow because it hasn't happened yet. I understand that there's a lag in the comprehension of the universe, but "with a large enough telescope" he could only observe your past.. not your "tomorrow". That makes no sense. The past also only exists as essentially a movie. It's coded in the light that you reflect. So yes your past exists somewhere, but only as a movie or picture. If you somehow followed the light that you reflected when you were 2 years old, you could isolate it and watch it as a movie, but you wouldn't actually travel back to that point in time. You might as well say that you can jump into the picture on a tv screen while watching a family video of yourself. That light exists, but physically it's moved on. It takes what, 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach the Earth? So you've got give or take that much time for the future to exist at the same time as the past and present.

At least IMO, from the way that I understand it.

 

[WaveJumper]

I disagree..

Yes I agree they do, but the future is only there in small segments, just because of the time it takes for light to reach your eye and your brain to make sense of it. Aside from that, the future isn't determined. Someone can't observe what you'll do tomorrow because it hasn't happened yet. I understand that there's a lag in the comprehension of the universe, but "with a large enough telescope" he could only observe your past.. not your "tomorrow".

When you are traveling at very very high speeds, time dilation occurs and your tomorrow might be the day after tomorrow for another stationary observer. Think about how that is possible - what you perceive as now might be someone's tomorrow, or someone's next year or someone's next millenium. This can only be possible if past, present and futre all exist at once, but when you are in the same frame of reference, time manifests as if flowed, when in fact the flow of time as far as relativity is concerned is a technically incorrect term. The block view of time in relativity is pretty solid and isn't something new or special.

In SR time enters equations in a manner completely identical to that of space.
This relativistic symmetry between space and time completely revolutionised
the concepts of space and time, by merging them into a single entity called “spacetime”.
As we certainly do not have a good reason to say that space lapses, relativity suggests
that time does not lapse either. Instead, relativity suggests a picture of the block time,
where time is nothing but one of the coordinates on the static 4-dimensional manifold.
All we know about relativity is perfectly consistent with such a picture. According to
this picture, the universe does not evolve with time. Instead, the universe is kind of
extended in 4 dimensions, one of them being called “time”. Both the “future” and the
“past”, as well as the “presence”, are there, without any of them being less certain or less
real then the other. Whaty's more, any attempt to define “future”, “past”, and “presence”
in an observer-independent way destroys the mathematical structure of the theory in an
artificial and arbitrary manner. And from experiments we know that the mathematical structure of SR is correct.

In other words, since universal Time is not uniquely defined in the theory of relativity, the assumption that there is a global flow of time in the universe is not compatible with relativity. Therefore, if we want to retain relativity, the block time is the only viable option.

So you might be asking - why is our subjective experience of Time so different than that in physics?

This is a very large topic that deserves a separate thread but for now i'll say that there exist 2 different notions of time - Subjective Time and Physical Time(mixing those 2 and using pure human intuition at this level of understanding is often very misleading).

For now you have to accept that physics says nothing about your subjective feeling of flow of time. But physics doesn't really say anything about emotions, love, beauty, joy, etc, does it?

That makes no sense. The past also only exists as essentially a movie. It's coded in the light that you reflect. So yes your past exists somewhere, but only as a movie or picture. If you somehow followed the light that you reflected when you were 2 years old, you could isolate it and watch it as a movie, but you wouldn't actually travel back to that point in time. You might as well say that you can jump into the picture on a tv screen while watching a family video of yourself. That light exists, but physically it's moved on. It takes what, 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach the Earth? So you've got give or take that much time for the future to exist at the same time as the past and present.

At least IMO, from the way that I understand it.

I lost you here, i think you might have misunderstood what i said.

 

[petm1]

When you are traveling at very very high speeds, time dilation occurs and your tomorrow might be the day after tomorrow for another stationary observer. Think about how that is possible - what you perceive as now might be someone's tomorrow, or someone's next year or someone's next millenium. This can only be possible if past, present and futre all exist at once, but when you are in the same frame of reference, time manifests as if flowed, when in fact the flow of time as far as relativity is concerned is a technically incorrect term. The block view of time in relativity is pretty solid and isn't something new or special.

We never reach tomorrow we only see the past and we only move around in the present toward some past event. No one can see my tomorrow until it is in my past which makes it yesterday for me and yes I have no idea when they will be able to see it unless I know how much time is between us which can be a measured of space.

 

[WaveJumper]

We never reach tomorrow we only see the past and we only move around in the present toward some past event. No one can see my tomorrow until it is in my past which makes it yesterday for me and yes I have no idea when they will be able to see it unless I know how much time is between us which can be a measured of space.

It doesn't matter what someone will see. It matters that there is no universal time and time does not flow(time in relativity, not time as in your subjective experience). Reread what i said above, if you still don't see the point, i think you'll have to consult other sources. Maybe my explaining is at fault.

Anyway, when you find your way through, you'll see that the quote of Einstein that:

"The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion" shows that this incredible man knew as early as a century ago that the flow of time is related to consciousness(an illusion created by the mind). That's why i objected to admitting that it's very certain that the universe had positively existed(as it appears to our consciousness now) prior to the arrival of consciousness. I don't like basing definitive statements on what is misleadingly perceived by consciousness, until it's fully understood how consciousness itself works(if it ever will).

Here is what Roger Penrose says in an interview on the same topic:

"Yes I think physicists would agree that the feeling of time passing is simply an illusion, something that is not real. It has something to do with our perceptions."

There is no such thing as flow of time in quantum theory either.


There is a reason why the basics of relativity and qm aren't taught in secondary school. I feel the old Rutherford model of the atom, that's taught in schools, with its billiard ball electrons is a nice way around some disturbing turns in physics.

 

[WaveJumper]

Say we had a complete physical account in terms of physics of everything that is taking place in what we term the universe(aka theory of everything), would this complete comprehensibility cause anyone to wonder if there is something more, possibly a deep underlying connection between the human mind and the universe? If not, please specify reasons.

 

[WaveJumper]

Say we had a complete physical account in terms of physics of everything that is taking place in what we term the universe(aka theory of everything), would this complete comprehensibility cause anyone to wonder if there is something more, possibly a deep underlying connection between the human mind and the universe? If not, please specify reasons.

I, for one, would seriously start doubting the idea of an external world.

 

[ibcnunabit]

Most people don't ever bother in their lifetimes to ask this question, yet i am sure it will become a prime issue in the Philosophy of Science in the near future(as we explain more aspects of reality).

So, how would you answer the question - Why is the Universe comprehensible?

Why do dumb quantum fields and particles behave through emergent properties in a way that can create what we call Life, that can in turn observe and comprehend how those quantum fields work?

Well, first off, one could just as well say, "Why is the Universe so INcomprehensible?" I would say that most things in the universe that are not well-understood, or even at all. And there are many that we may not or can not ever know.

But to the extent that we CAN comprehend the universe, the answer descends from the anthropic principle: our universe has enough order in it for life forms to form and live long enough to discover principles of the universe, and it has enough chaos not to be crystalline and dead. If it were not so, we would not be here to observe it. A corollary to this is that if the universe, for whatever reason, "could not be comprehended", there would be nobody able to ask the question.

The other part of that is that life has developed and survived to the extent that it has been able to adapt to the universe and its principles. Our biggest human survival trait has been our ability to comprehend the universe. This comprehension is not a characteristic of the universe, but rather a characteristic of humans. Whatever it is that the universe is and "does," we can observe and create a model of. We started with rough principles, many of which were false or only very roughly true--then through the scientific method, we have been able to pass down, refine, and advance that knowledge. All this is because of the tools (our bodies) that our genes have been able to slowly develop through their own kind of experimentation.

Do you feel we are self-organising and self-arising quantum fields(or a rather bizarre manifestation of them) in universe tailored for life, who are looking to find some Higher Goal/Truth or Purpose?

No to the first part, the last part is up to the individual. If you go looking for a "higher purpose," don't go looking for it "out there"--look for it inside yourself. That's the only place where it has any meaning. Nature and the Universe "don't care."

Maybe the Truth about reality or something even more mind-boggling?(Yes, in QFT everything, the whole universe can be represented by quantum fields, and in principle, it should be possible to derive all the observed phenomena from their interactions).

Actually, if that is the case, it should be considerably LESS mind-boggling, since we will be able to actually understand everything with respect to one model!

So why is the universe comprehensible? The universe(atheists call it Nature) created each and every single one of us in an environment that can be observed, interacted with, described and comprehended for millions of years on end.

The universe is comprehensible because there are principles governing its actions which are just part of "what is," and which humans are able to discover by simply observing "what is" and applying reasoning and the scientific method.

The universe or Nature didn't "create" us, but rather we emerged from it and are still a part of it. We can never be outside of the universe. If we couldn't observe, or interact with the universe we essentially could not exist, and if we could not describe it or comprehend it, (which are characteristics, again, of US, not the "the universe" as a whole), then we could not ask the question and would not be human to begin with. [/Quote]

What is what you refer to as 'Nature' trying to accomplish by those emergent properties and could Nature have a plan that we are failing to see?

Not a thing. Nature, or the Universe has no agenda, is not trying to accomplish anything, has no goals, and no plan. It "just is." It is we humans that have the agendas, the goals, and the plans.

Why would those quantum fields want to observe themselves, grow, develop, talk, laugh, sing, fall in love and make the utmost Sacrifice - lose the emergent properties that brought them to life because of an unreturned love(for example)?

Quantum fields have no wants or desire, do no "observe themselves" (that is a function that happens many emergent levels up from the quantum level). One level emerges from the one below, but is not generally aware of the level below. Only at the "highest level" (if it can be called that) of the mind does that happen. Even then, although the mind can understand the parts of the brain and how they work (to a certain degree), the mind is not aware of the workings of the brain as it creates the mind, but can only surmise or deduce them from introspective observation.

I imagine that there are many universes in which there is no life to question them. Perhaps there are even an infinite number of such universes. In ours, life is possible, evidently, because we are here. I am very glad that I am possible.

 

[WaveJumper]

I imagine that there are many universes in which there is no life to question them. Perhaps there are even an infinite number of such universes. In ours, life is possible, evidently, because we are here. I am very glad that I am possible.

I see what you believe, but if we are serious about causation we have to ask what creates infinite universes(e.g. through Big Bangs)? There has to be somewhere down the line an uncaused first cause(though one cannot be certain about this). I don't see how that could be anything short of an all-powerful timeless incomprehensible intelligent process("god" for lack of a better word).

 

[Pupil]

I see what you believe, but if we are serious about causation we have to ask what creates infinite universes(e.g. through Big Bangs)? There has to be somewhere down the line an uncaused first cause(though one cannot be certain about this). I don't see how that could be anything short of an all-powerful timeless incomprehensible intelligent process("god" for lack of a better word).

From what I know of science, there isn't such a thing as an uncaused cause, just where we can't go or get too tired to look.

Personally, I won't give up searching for answers regardless of where our searching leads us. I'm an atheist, but if God reveals himself or I die and see him, I'll be the first to get a scalpel and start poking Him and asking if he had a daddy.

 

[octelcogopod]

The purpose for life in the universe is quite odd to begin with.
There is a definite difference between dead objects and living thinking objects.
The truth is that we have no idea why life and intelligence was created in this seemingly dead universe of particles and atoms.
But I do think that once life(and especially sensory systems and brains) had been created, they would have to be able to function in reality.

It seems logical to me that they are able to function and comprehend the universe because they are 1. made by the universe and 2. created from components of the universe exclusively.
Whether or not the idea of intelligence and consciousness was an accident/fluke or something planned is impossible to say now.
But we can say it was there for a reason.. Something must have happened(probably a long chain of events even), and there probably lies your answer to why the universe is comprehensible.