Can Physics Explain Physics?

  • #26
ph
13
0
pssst QC

quantumcarl,

when you make it back,

your quote reminded me of "god needed god to experience himself so he created you"

i always loved that.

Thank You again.

dy

"may your day be filled with flowers and clouds and puppy breath...you are so beautiful to me" said the blind woman from venus.
 
  • #27
770
0
Mentat said:
Yes.



No. If this were the case, then it would be impossible for something to do anything other than what it was originally purposed to do.



The one that caused it usually assigns it its purpose (IOW, the causer is usually the purposer)...however, if there is a cause that isn't also a purposer, then purpose will have to be assigned be someone else.



Humans and any other intelligent beings there may be out there.




True, but that just means that the "purposes" we've assigned to physical processes needn't be accurate.

First, lets remember that ants form an ant-bridge to help thier population cross barriers and that birds use twigs with the purpose of extracting grubs from a difficult spot. Purpose can exist with or without what is deemed a "conscious understanding" of what a purpose is.

This suggests that it is not imperitive that "intelligence" be inextricably associated with "purpose" unless, of course, "purpose" can only exist when it is a concept conceived by intelligent being and there is no law that demands intelligence and purpose go hand in hand at all times.

The way we have interpreted "means" and "ends" or "cause" and "effect" and attached our interpretations to events simply shows that we hang on to events and try to classify them as "means" "purpose" and so on and so on.

But, the very fact that we do classify events is a function of physics and, from what I can ascertain at the moment, we are physics in the working. We are the eyes, ears and middle ears of physics. Its as though all this physical splendor and enormity comes to a head and somehow, purposefully or not purposefully, creates a consciousness that can function within physical laws and, ultimately, be governed by those same laws.

Back to the question: can we use physics to explain the existence of all these physical laws in our universe?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
quantumcarl said:
Back to the question: can we use physics to explain the existence of all these physical laws in our universe?

The only explanation I can imagine physics giving is if we found a TOE that had the mathematical or logical property that it was impossible for it to be false, in that the smallest contradiction of the least of its premises would entail physical events that we could test and find false. One of the features of string theory that attracts so many to it is that it has SOMETHING of this character; it seems to show of itself as the only game in town.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,716
578
In one Many Worlds model seen along the way, it is suggested that an infinite number of universes are generated, but the laws of physics vary from one to the next, and only certain universes are viable; or maybe only one is viable. The rest ultimately fail. In a sense this would explain why we have the laws that we have. And even without this model the answer may be the same, but then one has to ask how we got so lucky.

Edit: Maybe not from the Many Worlds Theory. This was one variation on the Big Bang Theory, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
770
0
selfAdjoint said:
The only explanation I can imagine physics giving is if we found a TOE that had the mathematical or logical property that it was impossible for it to be false, in that the smallest contradiction of the least of its premises would entail physical events that we could test and find false. One of the features of string theory that attracts so many to it is that it has SOMETHING of this character; it seems to show of itself as the only game in town.

If an event happens, how can it be false? The physical laws appear to have evolved out of the school of trial and error. As an event, and the law that governs it develops, they are either assimilated/integrated with existing physical laws or eliminated. Or, perhaps the unassimilated event/law is religated to a parellel universe. That would explain why certain laws exist in parallel universes, and perhaps why they do here.

Is string theory considered one of the founding, original, fundimental group of physical laws or is it a recently evolved product of the existence of the physical laws? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • #31
770
0
Ivan Seeking said:
In one Many Worlds model seen along the way, it is suggested that an infinite number of universes are generated, but the laws of physics vary from one to the next, and only certain universes are viable; or maybe only one is viable. The rest ultimately fail. In a sense this would explain why we have the laws that we have. And even without this model the answer may be the same, but then one has to ask how we got so lucky.

Edit: Maybe not from the Many Worlds Theory. This was one variation on the Big Bang Theory, IIRC.

How we got so lucky!? I guess we chose our reality well!

I used your premise about Many Worlds in my reply to self Adjoint. One law, and I don't know if its physical or not, but, there seems to be a need for opposites. Its a similar idea to "for every action an equal and opposite reaction" but it has less to do with action and more to do with "for every existence there is an equal and opposite existence". Maybe this is one way physics can be explained. Its here because it isn't somewhere else.
 
  • #32
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,429
742
Why is that hard to accept?. There is nothing special about this universe. Multiverse theory merely proposes this is one of many [perhaps infinite] versions of a universe that allows complex structures to form - like sentient observers. I try not to read too much into that. While there may be infinite numbers of 'me' in the 'multiverse', we do not communicate [so far as I can perceive]. I therefore conclude they have no causal connection to my observable universe.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,716
578
Chronos said:
While there may be infinite numbers of 'me' in the 'multiverse', we do not communicate [so far as I can perceive]. I therefore conclude they have no causal connection to my observable universe.

Its a good thing that you're not a photon. The wave theorists would be out of jobs. :biggrin:

Edit: Okay now let me say that in a way that someone will understand. :yuck:

The single photon, double slit experiment, is what I had in mind. IIRC, at least some versions of MWT depend heavily on the idea that alternate realities do interfere.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
770
0
Ivan Seeking said:
Its a good thing that you're not a photon. The wave theorists would be out of jobs. :biggrin:

Edit: Okay now let me say that in a way that someone will understand. :yuck:

The single photon, double slit experiment, is what I had in mind. IIRC, at least some versions of MWT depend heavily on the idea that alternate realities do interfere.

Are alternate realities part of the study (and reality) of physics?
 
  • #35
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
quantumcarl said:
Are alternate realities part of the study (and reality) of physics?


Not really. They may be part of some people's interpretation, but that is not diectly part of the study (or reality) of science. It's more part of the sociology of scientists.
 
  • #36
770
0
selfAdjoint said:
Not really. They may be part of some people's interpretation, but that is not diectly part of the study (or reality) of science. It's more part of the sociology of scientists.

Of course we could interpret the dark side of the moon as a different reality as compared to the reality of the sunny side of the moon. But, in this case reality is purely relative to those somewhat organized piles of matter that have light receptors, temperature sensitivity and a nice cozy extravehicular space suit.
 

Related Threads on Can Physics Explain Physics?

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top