How can science ever hope to explain everything?

[virtuathesect]

We can say the universe was created with a big bang but, if we take the view that a separate reality exists outside of our universe, this doesn't answer the question of how all of reality was created. If we explain the causes of the big bang, perhaps by some theory referring to a black hole sea, bouncing brane or mother universe or something, how can we explain what caused the existence of those entities? And if we can explain how they were created, perhaps by some other entity, how can we explain its creation? It's the chicken and egg story. It seems like this is the wrong way to think about 'the creation of everything' but admittedly I am lost.

String theory attempts to say that there can be a no more elementary object than a vibrating string. Could this be analogous to a multiverse? I.e. could there be a point where you can trace creation back no further and a single entity created everything, like a multistring or something? Sounds a bit like a God, albeit a multiversal one! However, I don't like the idea of a God mainly because we would still be left with the question of how this entity was created. In fact any attempt to think about the origin of reality seems to end up with the same problem.

Maybe humans simply don't have the correct type of intelligence or equipment to approach this question yet and we need to work on it while evolving for a few more million years. Or maybe I should have studied physics at university...

Can anyone give me hope? To all you pros; how do you resolve this matter in your head, if only temporarily, to stop you going insane while you study physics, without invoking philosophical paradigms?!

 

[marcus]

We can say the universe was created with a big bang but, if we take the view that a separate reality exists outside of our universe...

Why should we say the universe was created with a big bang?
In a strictly scientific context, there is no reason to claim this. (one has equally good models that go back further in time, but duplicate the standard results.)

It's my impression that speculations which at one time were fashionable, about a beginning that coincides with the big bang, are going out of fashion. Instead, one sees interest in models which go back further in time. There is currently no scientific reason to prefer the older model which failed to extend back further in time. So far no empirical evidence favoring one over the other: one simply doesn't know.

About your other idea, I don't know of any strictly scientific reason to suppose that a "separate reality exists outside our universe."
People can believe that if they want---as a kind of fantasy---but I don't see how it can be effective at explaining what we observe. It has no bearing on the price of apples, or the evolution of apple trees.

As far as I know, the SIMPLEST thing to assume that is consistent with scientific evidence is that time continues back indefinitely with no beginning, and into the future with no end---that there is one universe and it has always been here. Possibly this is not true and some future experiments or observations will provide disproof. But so far we don't have the scientific tools and evidence to show that it is wrong.

 

[marcus]

Virtua, if you would like a survey paper, this one is written as an invited address to a 2005 conference of historians and philosophers of science:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605078

You can skip the mathematics, there is not much and it is concentrated mostly in the middle section. I think it puts the issue of beginnings or no-beginnings in historical context and gives a glimpse of current developments that can be understood by nonspecialists.

 

[virtuathesect]

Thanks for that, will read and digest as best I can. I'm sure it will change my view somewhat.

As for other universes though, there is a scientific reason which is the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics as championed by David Deutsch. The theoretical founding is based on quantum interference as exhibited by the twin slit experiment, among other things. I know what you're saying about this being academic - if you can't notice it, does it matter? But the invention of quantum computers, if they are possible, would make these other universes very real as computations would be occurring in them which would affect the results seen in our universe (if the many worlds interpretation is correct).

So do you take the view that the universe is inifinite with regard to time? It would certainly make more sense than trying to trace back creation to a single point, for the reasons I've outlined above.

 

[Phobos]

Can anyone give me hope? To all you pros; how do you resolve this matter in your head, if only temporarily, to stop you going insane while you study physics, without invoking philosophical paradigms?!

Every good scientist should be able to say "I don't know". Uncertainty & the Unknown provide exciting areas of research, and should not be something to only fret over.

Scientists continue to collect more/better data and continue to improve/expand theories about the universe. What's "beyond" the Big Bang? No one knows. Let's keep investigating.

And yes, it's possible that the universe has existed forever. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the visible universe (i.e., the portion within our field of view...but the whole universe is more than that).

Maybe humans simply don't have the correct type of intelligence or equipment to approach this question yet and we need to work on it while evolving for a few more million years.

It's better to try than not, yes?

 

[Chris Hillman]

Why should we say the universe was created with a big bang?
In a strictly scientific context, there is no reason to claim this. (one has equally good models that go back further in time, but duplicate the standard results.)

Oh? What about Occam's razor?

However, regarding the plea for humility, I like parts of this:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0009020

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that cosmologists know an awful lot about the universe, knowledge which won't be overturned. The burning question is how best to organize all this knowledge into a coherent theoretical picture. The mainstream picture sometimes changes drastically, as happened fairly recently with Lambda, and then (apparently) the discovery of lots and lots of strange new stuff which doesn't act like the matter we know and love.

 

[marcus]

Oh? What about Occam's razor?

...

Not sure the razor applies when comparing ordinary FRW cosmology with attempts to quantize it such as Wheeler DeWitt or LQC
In the case of LQC you get something new, namely removal of singularities, and a reasonable chance of falsifiability (eventually being able to derive signatures to look for in CMB or early structure that are either there or not).
Quantizing is not exactly a case of multiplying entities unnecessarily.

 

[Chronos]

We certainly have hit a wall observationally. It appears the universe in which we reside had a definitive beginning around 13.7 billion years ago. It does not yet appear possible to describe what, if anything, preceeded it. Is that unappealing? Certainly, but those are the facts as best we know. Appealing to previous universes, or multiverses, is little more than mathematical alchemy until tested, and that is a problem. What would be the signature of a prior incarnation of this universe? Can information survive a 'bounce', or would any such survival ultimately lead to something akin to a heat death? It's a problem that may be inherently unsolvable, hence scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Wallace]

Science is never going to answer touchy-feely philosophical questions such as 'why is there something rather than nothing?'. Science will never tell us why there is a Universe but can tell us how it evolved.

Is this a flaw in science? No. But it is a flaw in reason to ask science these questions. I could make some platitude about these questions belonging to the realm of philosophy or theology but I suspect that these fields are equally useless at answering these questions.

 

[blumfeld0]

I think when all is said and done the answer will be 'because there is no other way it could be'.

 

[marcus]

what other choice was there?
(just paraphrasing blumfeld. I like it.)

 

[Mike2]

Science is never going to answer touchy-feely philosophical questions such as 'why is there something rather than nothing?'. Science will never tell us why there is a Universe but can tell us how it evolved.

I'm not entirely sure about that. What we learn from science is that the universe is completely logical. And one truth from logic is that a true conclusion can come from a false premise. In other words something can come from nothing - this is permitted by logic too. So the question, "Why is there something and not nothing?" is the same as asking, "Can something come from nothing?" And the answer is yes.

 

[Wallace]

You speak of philosophy and abstract logic, not science. The assertion you've just made cannot be verified by experiment or observation and hence science is moot on this point.

 

[justwondering]

Someone, perhaps many, have said that "our universe exists only because it is a (necessary) perturbation about zero". That could be considered a neat reason for its existence.

 

[zankaon]

Science is never going to answer touchy-feely philosophical questions such as 'why is there something rather than nothing?'. Science will never tell us why there is a Universe but can tell us how it evolved.

The opposite of a great truth is also a great truth - T. Mann

for example, the opposite of empty set {} is a non-empty set, such as the set of integers, or the finite sets we experience in our mundane lifes.

also a lesser context can define the greater context, and vice versa. that is, each is defined by what it is not i.e. its antithesis; for example, the antithesis of quanta and spacetime manifold.

so what if our universe, or a divergent cyclical set of universes (hence non-empty set with 1:1 correspondence to integers), has a greater context of the simplest case i.e. empty set? Could this be indirectly inferred; of course without perturbing such alleged greater context? Such as if there were multiple 'universes'.

 

[Burnsys]

Some times i just hope god came from the sky and tell us: "Look this is how i did it", sadly i don't believe in god!
No really i personally think that the universe contains everything from nothing to all, everything that could happen will happen, that doesn't put our visible universe in any special position, the anthropic principle does the rest.

 

[Mike2]

You speak of philosophy and abstract logic, not science. The assertion you've just made cannot be verified by experiment or observation and hence science is moot on this point.

What if the laws of physics as we presently know them could be derived from the abstract principles of logic alone (I'm getting close myself to doing just that), will we call that science or religion? Does "science" deny logical deduction? Is there anything in all reality that is not logical? If it is the goal of science to explain everything, then that ultimate explanation cannot depend on some object which itself needs explaning too. The ultimate explanation will have to depend on principle alone. And it would have to depend on principles that concern existence or not, true or false.

 

[Wallace]

What if the laws of physics as we presently know them could be derived from the abstract principles of logic alone (I'm getting close myself to doing just that)

Let me know when you get there ;)

...will we call that science or religion? Does "science" deny logical deduction? Is there anything in all reality that is not logical? If it is the goal of science to explain everything, then that ultimate explanation cannot depend on some object which itself needs explaning too. The ultimate explanation will have to depend on principle alone. And it would have to depend on principles that concern existence or not, true or false.

You're several hundred years behind scientific method. The Greek philosophers thought as you do that everything that is 'true' must be deducible from Logic alone and rejected empirical verification as unnecessary and even misleading. A few braves souls over a millennium later named Galileo and Newton (amongst many others) rejected this notion and realized that there were many things that could not be deduced, but had to be inferred from observation and experiment. Gone was the need for rigid axiomatic foundations and as a consequence empirical science flourished and forever changed the world.

I see no reason to (quite literally!) return to the dark ages of science in the way you suggest.

 

[Mike2]

Let me know when you get there ;)

I would think the first place to look would be my home page.

You're several hundred years behind scientific method. The Greek philosophers thought as you do that everything that is 'true' must be deducible from Logic alone and rejected empirical verification as unnecessary and even misleading. A few braves souls over a millennium later named Galileo and Newton (amongst many others) rejected this notion and realized that there were many things that could not be deduced, but had to be inferred from observation and experiment. Gone was the need for rigid axiomatic foundations and as a consequence empirical science flourished and forever changed the world.

I see no reason to (quite literally!) return to the dark ages of science in the way you suggest.

I don't reject empirical verification. There has to be some method of verifying the math. Verification is unavoidable. For the only reason that we would even start such an effort would be to make predictions. It would then become immediately obvious whether such a theory was correct or not.

The ancient greek phylosophers did not have the mathematical tools to prove their intuition. Symbolic representation of propositional calculus did not even exist until 1850's with Boolean algebra. But you might wish to consider that logic originally was a tool for physics - the propositions that made up the premises and conclusions were described in terms of physical circumstances whose actual existence was considered either true or false. And this is even the case today. There is simply no way to understand physics without logic. The question is how dependent is physics on abstract logic? We know that mathematics has a logical origin, with the union and intersection of elements in a topology used to defined mathematical concepts such as continuity, etc. So we know that as far as our mathematical description of physics is concerned, it is based on logic.

 

[russ_watters]

The ancient greek phylosophers did not have the mathematical tools to prove their intuition.

That's simply, factually wrong. Aristotle reasoned out a great many things that were mathematically simple, factually wrong, and easily testable. The most obvious are his most famous 'reasoned theories' that objects fall at an acceleration proportional to their mass and that objects require a force to stay in motion. Both of these are easily falsified with disturbingly simple experiments. 400 years ago, Tycho Brahe used to challenge the first one at dinner parties and people would just about fall off their chairs when he dropped apples and grapes and they both hit the table at the same time.

Wallace2 is correct: this concept of how science should work is clearly proven flawed and more than 400 years out of date. It is wrong. Period.

 

[russ_watters]

I've moved this thread to Philosophy, but please be advised that that does not grant permission for a free-for-all science-bash. The discussion must still be grounded in facts and logic. Ie, reality.

 

[Mike2]

That's simply, factually wrong. Aristotle reasoned out a great many things that were mathematically simple, factually wrong, and easily testable. The most obvious are his most famous 'reasoned theories' that objects fall at an acceleration proportional to their mass and that objects require a force to stay in motion. Both of these are easily falsified with disturbingly simple experiments. 400 years ago, Tycho Brahe used to challenge the first one at dinner parties and people would just about fall off their chairs when he dropped apples and grapes and they both hit the table at the same time.

Wallace2 is correct: this concept of how science should work is clearly proven flawed and more than 400 years out of date. It is wrong. Period.

I can't imagine how it could be "wrong" to assert that the laws of physics can be derived from logic alone, though we may not know how yet. For it would a complete absurdity to assert otherwise. Will one really assert that the true laws of physics (when they are found) are NOT ultimately logical? That would sound crazy in my humble opinion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't imagine how it could be "wrong" to assert that the laws of physics can be derived from logic alone, though we may not know how yet. For it would a complete absurdity to assert otherwise. Will one really assert that the true laws of physics (when they are found) are NOT ultimately logical? That would sound crazy in my humble opinion.

This is a bait and switch argument.

You started with "can be derived from logic" and went to "is ultimately logical"

Just because something is ultimately logical does not mean that it can be derived from logic alone.

You can derive a lot about the world if you grew up deep in a cave, but no amount of logic in the world will cause you to derive the fusion that powers stars if you've never even seen the night sky.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can't imagine how it could be "wrong" to assert that the laws of physics can be derived from logic alone, though we may not know how yet. For it would a complete absurdity to assert otherwise. Will one really assert that the true laws of physics (when they are found) are NOT ultimately logical? That would sound crazy in my humble opinion.

Could you give just ONE example of a logical derivation of any of the emergent phenomena that we have today? Till you can do that, none of what you have said have any validity, and this thread and you are in violation of our Guidelines.

Zz.

 

[wuliheron]

Don't pay too much attention to Zap, he thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is in violation of the forum guidelines.

Evidently some bird other than a chicken laid an egg that became the first chicken. However, when you start asking about broader topics like life, the universe, and everything you are correct to assume that science will never find the answers. According to the science of linguistics, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. In other words, linguists and philosophers alike have a great deal of trouble defining words like "existence" because the context is too broad.

 

[ZapperZ]

Don't pay too much attention to Zap, he thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is in violation of the forum guidelines.

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

There are currently no purely logical origin of the postulates of Special Relativity, the postulates of Quantum Mechanics, the CPT conservation, the translational/isotropic symmetry of space, etc.. etc. Thus, making such claim is certainly a highly speculative proposition and is prohibited by our Guidelines.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't imagine how it could be "wrong" to assert that the laws of physics can be derived from logic alone, though we may not know how yet. For it would a complete absurdity to assert otherwise.

Dave took care of the bait and switch part. The other part - what makes your argument "wrong" - has already been covered, but not explicitly stated: all logic depends on it's starting premisies to form correct conclusions. So it should be obvious why Aristotle's idea was wrong: he made little effort to ensure that his starting premisies were correct (he essentially just made assumptions that sounded good in his head) and thus his logic led him in the wrong direction. He was worse than that, but that alone shows unequivocably why even the most impeccable logic cannot possibly lead to scientific knowledge if it is not guided by data.

 

[Mike2]

Could you give just ONE example of a logical derivation of any of the emergent phenomena that we have today? Till you can do that, none of what you have said have any validity, and this thread and you are in violation of our Guidelines.

Zz.

You are already aware of my efforts in this regard since you keep censoring my work on these forums. Such derivation is available on the home page listed in my profile on these forums. Do I take your invitation as permission to discuss what you call my pet theory? Or were you baiting me to break forum guidelines? I now think that I can get QM, Classical Lagrangian physics, SR, and GR to emerge from my derivation from logic. And I would appreciate discussion about it. So I've been requesting for 5 months to publish on the Independent Research forum. The monitor agrees that such derivation IS acceptable for the IR forum and is "very interesting". But it appears that the monitor will not post anyone's work. I'm beginning to think that the IR forum is just a euphemism.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are already aware of my efforts in this regard since you keep censoring my work on these forums. Such derivation is available on the home page listed in my profile on these forums.

Which part of "... new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals..." did you not understand?

Do I take your invitation as permission to discuss what you call my pet theory? Or were you baiting me to break forum guidelines? I now think that I can get QM, Classical Lagrangian physics, SR, and GR to emerge from my derivation from logic. And I would appreciate discussion about it. So I've been requesting for 5 months to publish on the Independent Research forum. The monitor agrees that such derivation IS acceptable for the IR forum and is "very interesting". But it appears that the monitor will not post anyone's work. I'm beginning to think that the IR forum is just a euphemism.

And if it can only belong in there, then it does not belong in the REST of this forum, but you continue to use it as IF it has been published. It isn't a bait. It was a straightforward question regarding your assertion that such a thing can actually be done. And I am not looking for YOUR derivation, I'm asking for a valid reference source since I presumed you were well aware of the requirements to make such claims. If you think what you are doing has that much of a validity, then you know what I would ask next, don't you? Why haven't you submited it to PRL, etc. already to get it published? Then we can talk about it on here till we're blue.

Till that happens, I would consider your reference to what you can and can't do already as speculative.

Zz.

 

[wuliheron]

Dave took care of the bait and switch part. The other part - what makes your argument "wrong" - has already been covered, but not explicitly stated: all logic depends on it's starting premisies to form correct conclusions. So it should be obvious why Aristotle's idea was wrong: he made little effort to ensure that his starting premisies were correct (he essentially just made assumptions that sounded good in his head) and thus his logic led him in the wrong direction. He was worse than that, but that alone shows unequivocably why even the most impeccable logic cannot possibly lead to scientific knowledge if it is not guided by data.

Just a note on Aristotle, he was considered the greatest observer of his time. It is a bit of an overstatement to claim that his starting premises were "essentially just made up assumptions that sounded good in his head."

 

[DaveC426913]

Aristotle was a brilliant logician, and an accomplished observer, granted. He put the first piece of the discipline of Science in place.

But he didn't experiment. The second piece, the Scientific Method would not be formulated for centuries.

 

[Mike2]

And if it can only belong in there, then it does not belong in the REST of this forum, but you continue to use it as IF it has been published. It isn't a bait. It was a straightforward question regarding your assertion that such a thing can actually be done. And I am not looking for YOUR derivation, I'm asking for a valid reference source since I presumed you were well aware of the requirements to make such claims. If you think what you are doing has that much of a validity, then you know what I would ask next, don't you? Why haven't you submited it to PRL, etc. already to get it published? Then we can talk about it on here till we're blue.

Zz.

You reject the very notion of physics derived from logic alone as something that is part of science. So how can you even suggest it might be possible to publish in any peer reviewed forum in physics?

 

[Mike2]

Dave took care of the bait and switch part. The other part - what makes your argument "wrong" - has already been covered, but not explicitly stated: all logic depends on it's starting premisies to form correct conclusions. So it should be obvious why Aristotle's idea was wrong: he made little effort to ensure that his starting premisies were correct (he essentially just made assumptions that sounded good in his head) and thus his logic led him in the wrong direction. He was worse than that, but that alone shows unequivocably why even the most impeccable logic cannot possibly lead to scientific knowledge if it is not guided by data.

What you seem to be suggesting is that logic is only useful when we plug contingint facts as premises into logical expressions in order to deduce conclusions. In the process you are stating that objects are something that is completely different than logic. And that seems to be stating that at some level reality is NOT logical. I disagree. I think reality is a tautology, not a contingency.

If reality were a contingency, then an explanation of everything is not possible. You can only bump up against some object that cannot be explained. It cannot be explained because it remains a contingency in your logical equations, and not a derivation of logical equations. To me it sounds like arguing the case for chaos.

 

[ZapperZ]

You reject the very notion of physics derived from logic alone as something that is part of science. So how can you even suggest it might be possible to publish in any peer reviewed forum in physics?

How did I managed to control all of the physics journals of the world? I don't buy the Fleishmann and Pons cold fusion paper, but they still managed to publish it in some electrochemistry journal. Somehow, my rejection of something will block such publication everywhere? This is absurd and one of the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

This is still besides the point. If you can't cite any peer-reviewed journals to back your claim, it doesn't belong here. You knew perfectly well what you were getting into with this forum.

Zz.

 

[LostInSpaceTime]

Aristotle was a brilliant logician, and an accomplished observer, granted. He put the first piece of the discipline of Science in place.

But he didn't experiment. The second piece, the Scientific Method would not be formulated for centuries.

So logic can't exist without observation/experience/experiment. The most logical person would be someone that already knows it all. So you can't use true logical unless you can deduct from all experiences/experiments you've had. So the more facts you know the more logical you can be.

This is how I see it(as someone else mentioned)...if you raise a kid in a box their whole life with no experiences and you take them and show them the sun and you ask them to logically explain how the sun could work...first of all if he don't know anything about light at all he couldn't logically know that it's a big ball of burning gas...because he's never been taught about how light works. ie: heat=light. That's why we have god...I can't prove how the sun works logically so someone who knows how to do this stuff put it there...logically. If you have no facts to make an assumption; all the reasoning in the world won't get you your answer.