Unpacking the Quantum Universe: God's Knowledge and the Role of Observations

[wimms]

-- Question is why it [universe] follows any consistent logic AT ALL? (wimms)
posted by Alexander
Because, as I have shown above, logic IS universe itself

Amazing. I'd never expect scientist to say that out so clearly. We don't disagree here. But this is unexpected you said that, to me at least. You realize that this claim has enormous implications?
But, its not science, its fundamental claim and thus belongs to philosophy/religion domain.
So, logic IS universe. Fine. Then all material stuff is in fact logical concepts, and all interactions logical operators, time is concept of order, and entropy iterative differentiation, reason for inflation.
But question creeps in - is logic destructible in principle? bet not. Its abstract idea. Actually, all that exists is abstract ideas. There is no difference between mathmatical concepts we imagine and logical concepts that exist. Then, even your wildest imagination is actually real. And so on..

And it [logic] creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is allpervasive and eternal.
Pretty much definition of god, if you scrap all that personification attached to it by dogmatic egomaniac mortals.

-- Q: where does this logic come from in first place? (wimms)
Once again: from the fact that something (like any object, or any phenomenon) exists (we then label this "something" as "yes", or "+", or "1" or "true").

This is not answer, this is selfreferential and repeating yourself. We map out logic of universe by observing it, noticing patterns and assigning labels. Then we go ahead and use those labels with assumption that those patterns are universal. As we've not observed contradictions, we call it fact. But how on Earth can you say that logic of universe comes from our labels, our observation? It exists without our presence.

Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of universe isn't necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it's enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, that's THE common property of any logic system. That allows us to describe universe, however difficult it might be for our boolean logic. Maybe in some other internally consistent logic system it might be described much more simply.

Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all. There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn't answer why. At best we could describe 'how', but not the reason 'why'.

Can you see my point? Logic is god of science. Religions being unable to reason or not even wanting to, attach all kinds of suitable labels to it, and call that monstrum a god. Its hope and wishful thinking that if they pray to logic, it'll listen to them and grant them heaven. Whats a point in arguing about 'properties' of religious god?

While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And that's it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
What is the difference? [infinity vs infinite]

From dictionary:
infinity:
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics. The limit that a function f is said to approach at x = a when f(x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.

infinite:
adj.
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
. a. - Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
. b. - Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
. c. - Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

n.
Something infinite.

 

[HazZy]

is there any distinct difference between "unbounded" and "boundless"? they seem one in the same to me; I've always thought of both infinite and infinity as boundless ideas anyway.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by wimms
Amazing. I'd never expect scientist to say that out so clearly. We don't disagree here. But this is unexpected you said that, to me at least. You realize that this claim has enormous implications?
But, its not science, its fundamental claim and thus belongs to philosophy/religion domain.
So, logic IS universe. Fine. Then all material stuff is in fact logical concepts, and all interactions logical operators, time is concept of order, and entropy iterative differentiation, reason for inflation.
But question creeps in - is logic destructible in principle? bet not. Its abstract idea. Actually, all that exists is abstract ideas. There is no difference between mathmatical concepts we imagine and logical concepts that exist. Then, even your wildest imagination is actually real. And so on..

And it [logic] creates ALL that there is, it controls all that there is, it is allpervasive and eternal.
Pretty much definition of god, if you scrap all that personification attached to it by dogmatic egomaniac mortals.

This is not answer, this is selfreferential and repeating yourself. We map out logic of universe by observing it, noticing patterns and assigning labels. Then we go ahead and use those labels with assumption that those patterns are universal. As we've not observed contradictions, we call it fact. But how on Earth can you say that logic of universe comes from our labels, our observation? It exists without our presence.

Our human logic we use to describe universe is inherently boolean. Logic of universe isn't necessarily boolean at all. To describe it by our boolean logic, it's enough that its logic (any kind) is merely internally consistent, that's THE common property of any logic system. That allows us to describe universe, however difficult it might be for our boolean logic. Maybe in some other internally consistent logic system it might be described much more simply.

Still, whatever the universe logic is like, we can only observe its expression, but can never know the reason why it is this way. Why is logic of universe even internally consistent at all. There is no reason for that, it could be equally completely acausal without any capacity to create objects. Yes we are here, but that doesn't answer why. At best we could describe 'how', but not the reason 'why'.

Can you see my point? Logic is god of science. Religions being unable to reason or not even wanting to, attach all kinds of suitable labels to it, and call that monstrum a god. Its hope and wishful thinking that if they pray to logic, it'll listen to them and grant them heaven. Whats a point in arguing about 'properties' of religious god?

While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And that's it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

I'll answer for Alexander here, though I don't really agree with him.

What is is implying is that the universe is in fact a network of rules. These rules do not create the universe as a god may, but ARE the universe. What we see as matter is the physical action of these rules, and these rules are completely real and non-abstract.
If we say the universe is real, and logic is the universe, we get the idea that all true logic are represented in reality. They are independently real. They are not the same as ideas. So we are not saying there is a creator, but a fundamental material of which all things are made, which contains the information of these rules. Like DNA does for life, perhaps.

At the same time, we through knowledge have gained an understanding of these rules, which form all our knowledge. So, while it is true that everything we think of came from maths or logic, it is not true that everything we think is real. We say that absolute rules exist in the universe, and the imperfect way we understand them creates the "ideas".



What Alexander is saying is that a true set of physical rules exist, and they are absolutely universal. Our understanding of these come from our labels, but they are based in what is real.


Why is the universe internally consistent? Because internal consistency is automatic. Where does our analysis of consistency come from? The real logic. So, the universal logic just cannot be internally inconsistent as if then, the inconsistency would be the new consistency. Our idea of what is consistent would simply be different.


Speaking as myself:

No, logic is not the God of science. Do religions shackle their gods, weird them in a hand and use them to detect things? Logic is a tool. God is an entity. While religions discourage selfish prayer, and say that the point is to work for god, not expect god to work for you, science uses logic only because it is useful. Do you consider your car a God, since you use it?
And since your own knowledge of mechanics does not give you the working of how that car works, do you delegate to religion?

But you have a point. Science describes the laws, not always how they are made. But then, does religion do anything different? Can an explanation using God hold any superiority to an explanation holding no god, when there is no evidence for both. There may be a niche for God, but it would appear to be hiding within the margins of uncertainty...

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
While religious people would say that logic itself is creation of god, scientists will simply stop here and say that reasons for internally consistent logic of universe is unanswerable question in principle, and science doesn't deal with that, science only uses it. And that's it: science stops here, and religion takes over beyond that point.
There's always room for god.

No, science does not stop here. It goes one step futher.

Notice that logic comes from the fact that something EXISTS (anything, it does not matter exactly what - a phenomenon, an object, a human, a rock, a space, a time, etc). So, if ANYTHING (say, a rock) exists, then we immediately can label it as "1", or "+", ot "true", or "yes", etc. The LACK of this rock is labeled as "0", or "-", or "false", or "no", etc. We have (binary) logic. So, foundation of logic is just the fact of EXISTENCE of anything.

Therefore, if anything exists it shall then obey logic by the very definition of logic. Math is just advanced form of logic, that is why it is so correct in not only describing but also in PREDICTING behavior of existing things.

Is not this obvious and well known fact from materialism?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
If we say the universe is real, and logic is the universe, we get the idea that all true logic are represented in reality. They are independently real. They are not the same as ideas. So we are not saying there is a creator, but a fundamental material of which all things are made, which contains the information of these rules. Like DNA does for life, perhaps.

Here you make step backwards. You say there is material which then interacts. You just moved the fundamental question elsewhere. Question where does it come from creeps in immediately. While its possible to construct all from logic alone.

check out this 'mad' scientist: http://ebtx.com/ntxtoc.htm
Alex, you might find it interesting too.

Why is the universe internally consistent? Because internal consistency is automatic. Where does our analysis of consistency come from? The real logic. So, the universal logic just cannot be internally inconsistent as if then, the inconsistency would be the new consistency. Our idea of what is consistent would simply be different.

Yes it would. This is interesting matter in itself - consistently inconsistent logic is .. consistent. But then our whole math would be different. Have you thought about any other possible kind of logic? Try. imo, human mind simply doesn't bend enough to come up with something. Mainly because our only tool to evaluate consistency of other logic, is our logic. We can only evaluate it in context of our logic that may be unable to see internal consistency of other, in context of other logic itself. To really construct some other internally consistent logic, you'd need to THINK in context of other logic. And that's the real difficulty, we can't escape our own logic, to do that you'd need to go frankly nuts.

Yet, where from comes restriction to real logic, what rejects possible acausal disappearance of sun? I mean, in terms of deep logic of universe - why it stays the same, everywhere? What holds it in piece? Why it doesn't change randomly like in worst LSD dreams?

Originally posted by Alexander
Notice that logic comes from the fact that something EXISTS. So, foundation of logic is just the fact of EXISTENCE of anything.

Therefore, if anything exists it shall then obey logic by the very definition of logic.

Imo, you are abit too excited about definitions. There is myriad of assumptions and observations in simple term EXISTS, as is also claim that 'it shall then obey logic'. What you repeatedly try to put into me, is just source of our human logic, based on observation of macro world. I don't object that, I simply don't agree that its universal simply by our definition. You can ponder about term 'exists', because you can imagine and define nonexistent. But how on Earth must universe evaluate term 'not exist'? In universe, everything can only exist, for that which doesn't, is outside of universe and doesn't participate in 'logic'.
All that exists necessarily interacts, or, infact, to exist is to interact. Then logic of reality is not in fact of existence, but in kind of interactions.

Think about photon. Does it EXIST in yes/no and stationary form? No, it can exist only at speed of light, only via interaction, and only through probabilities. If our macro world behaved like that, our 'foundation of logic' would be completely different. So, we are trying to apply our logic to QM world that doesn't actually follow our logic exactly, yet we are successful in describing it.

Logic as a tool is actually indifferent to how reality behaves, all it does it to evaluate validity of claims from given assumptions, in context of logic rules. It even handles okay claims such as photon partly exists, and partly doesn't, that it sometimes obeys logic and sometimes doesn't. If you as scientist restrict possibilities by postulates, then, you describe the world in context of those postulates, and instead of partly exists you get energy barriers, entanglement, probabilities, etc.

And still, again, you talk about FACT that its so and so, and that we use that fact as our basis. And you evaluate possibilities in context of our logic. You do not allow even possibility that there might be other logic, by which EXISTS might not necessarily mean obeying logic.

 

[Alexander]

I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-").

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Alexander
In our quantum universe future is not set. So, how could God know "all what comes" if there is non yet?

From scratch I'll comment. Not going to bother with anything said beyond this, as it's probably nothing that will ruin my points.

1. future is not set. I have a theory, a long one but simple, that proves the future is completely definied by the past (past being none future, considering no time as present). I have yet to post it here, as I feel it's something I want to share only with physics gurus. Point being saying future is set might not be true

2. Why it might not be true theoretically (meaning not using my theory) is that QM and GR don't mix. from this I would say that on an ultimate level QM and GR might not work more than we think they don't work. While we know some things don't work in each outside of their element, perhaps in a much LARGER element, nothing in them works at all. Just a perhaps...

3. God is a mythological character. This is the superimposition error. When superimposing mythology onto reality, all bets are off. It's something to do after bong hits (and I don't smoke) because it has no "purpose".

4. God does know all that comes. That fact is made evident in any mythology which states "God knows all that comes". If the mythology says it it's true. But true only in that mythological system. NOT in reality. Superimposition.

 

[Alexander]

I agree that Santa the Clause knows about needs of each and every child in universe. Or that Draculas multiply by biting virgins. As long as this remains outside of reality.

Future can't be set even theoretically, because waves are mathematically blurry objects by definition (and everything in universe is wave).

 

[FZ+]

Here you make step backwards. You say there is material which then interacts. You just moved the fundamental question elsewhere. Question where does it come from creeps in immediately. While its possible to construct all from logic alone.

I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence.

Yet, where from comes restriction to real logic, what rejects possible acausal disappearance of sun? I mean, in terms of deep logic of universe - why it stays the same, everywhere? What holds it in piece? Why it doesn't change randomly like in worst LSD dreams?

What do you think happens when you take LSD? But now we enter into the realms of the truly pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly? And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that...

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by FZ+
I was answering for Alexander... sort of. The point is that there is not material which they reacts, but that laws exist (or are randomly evolved) which force what we consider as material to come into existence.

Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.

And, that 'which force what we consider as material to come into existence', is what? god of quantum universe?

But now we enter into the realms of the truly pedantic. Why should the real logic change randomly?

Equally valid question is 'Why should the real logic (laws) stay unchanged?'. Preference to either is given by our faith. We prefer that logic stays same, because it allows us to describe it with our consistent math. It happens to be more likely by observation, but there isn't any good reason why should there exist Any physics Law at All.

And if it does, how would we know? How do we know the deep logic stays the same, everywhere? We assume that, but I dare say it would be tough to confirm that...

Well, we have telescopes, observable range of billions of lightyears, and what we see is that its same stuff everywhere. Thats pretty much enough for us. If laws changed randomly, it'd be immediately apparent in any proximity. There are too many possibilities that lead only to chaos, and only very few that lead to stable systems. If laws were randomly changing, it would take enormously long time to 'phase-lock' to something meaningful during periods with lack of any meaning. That is still possible, but then it would need to open whole new scale below Planck physics, and QM would be like 'casual snapshot image' ontop of something completely uncomprehensible, that would escape any attempts of description in frame of any logic or math. That would be more or less deadend for science.

But even completely random laws and logic would make us ask 'Why is the real logic changing randomly?' Any attempt to describe all of existence will always step onto something that cannot be explained.

Without any specifics of religious properties attached, concept of god encodes that which cannot be explained in principle, ultimate axiom, reason behind it all. As Alex has been pointing out, history of god came from unexplained, and got unbelieveably crazy properties in imagination of man. Science has continuously moved realm of god further away. In my view, science hasn't disproved god, but instead heavily redefined it into extremely impersonal, logical, fair and indifferent to any single pion in this universe, that which creates world without actually creating anything. Religions have heavy inertia, that's why they are called dogmas.

I don't care about proof or disproof of god, my mind is open for both. But I'll never write it with capitals, or call it 'him', or bang my head or pray to it. If it doesn't like that, it may go to hell itself. So, although I don't reject concept of god, I have no respect to any variant of religion (besides that of my own perhaps )

Originally posted by Alexander
I wonder, if logic (and thus math)is even more fundamental than anything. Indeed, even "nothingness" can be labeled by logical/mathematical symbol (say, as "0" or as "none" or "-").

I believe so. But we can't mix all meanings with same short word logic. There is internal logic of interactions in universe - laws. There is logic of aristoteles, that we use to validate internal consistency, there is math as language to describe nature. They are all somewhat different.

I would not agree that math or aristoteles logic is fundamental to existence, they are our tools. Internal logic of universe is real, but isn't necessarily same as our human logic or math. It may be wildly different from boolean. What makes it possible to describe it by math then? Fact that its also internally consistent.

I assume that any internally consistent logical system is able to describe any other internally consistent physical system, somehow, despite that they might be based on absolutely different foundations. Internal consistency of both is like equation sign. Still, interpretations might differ enormously depending on logical system used, as well as complexity of descriptions.

What puzzles me at times, is that while we explain nature, we move towards more and more fundamental 'things'. But Fundamentals is supposed to be more basic simplicities. Instead, the deeper we delve into QM, the more complex it all gets. Isn't this a sign of using wrong tools against simple things? Or approaching uncomprehensible?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, still same problem. 'that laws exist' - those 'laws' are what we call logic of universe, 'truth table' if you like. Yes, they are here. WHY? -> "stupid question". They are searched, found and defined, but not explained.

I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions".

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most).

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
I think they are explained. My understanding is that these laws follow from the way we define physical quantities. Notice that all quantities are related, or mathematically entangled - they can be reduced back to(=defined from) 3-4 basic quantities (space, time, mass, charge). Let's called derivative quantities (quantities which are defined via basic quantities) as "compound" quantities. So, what we have is a some object (universe) in which we can observe measurable quantities and they all are related to each other by big "truth table of mutual definitions".

Again , back-and-forth we jump, run in circles, etc. We either define properties of quantities (matter) and derive laws (logic), or we define laws and derive properties. In any case, we don't create anything by defining, we merely describe that which already IS. By jumping between these 'explanations', we are simply comforting from circular reasoning. Please don't assume I'm arguing with your facts, but please just notice how much you use constatation of facts, 'we define', 'are related', 'what we have'.. This is all nifty modelling, but doesn't anywhere explain why there is something instead of nothing at all, in terms of properties, relations, etc.

Now that you've pointed out "compound" quantities, let me clarify realm I'm talking about - its not that of 'compound', but that below - basic quantities, laws, entanglement, relations. We know they are here, we find and describe them, but we don't know why they are here or why they are related in this or that manner. Every attempt to explain them will hit either selfreferential or would require something more fundamental.

There exists no theory of existence that has NO axioms, implicit or hidden. It's what underlies reasons for those axioms (if true) that is perpetual vacancy for god. And science is constantly pushing that border down to ever more fundamental, but it'll never get quite there, for every step we make is colored by bunch of axioms we rely upon, "big truth table of mutual axioms"...

When science will someday get to the limits, there will be bunch of axioms, and mathmatical relations between them, that together are 'creating' all of the universe. And that would be precise scientific 'definition' of god. whatelse?

Thus "compound" quantities simply can not behave in a way non-compliant with their definition (= reduction to basic quantities). When some quantity is "too compound" and relation to original basic quantities is too long (more than 2-3 definitions away), then we just too lazy to trace that and say "energy conserves by definition of energy in a symmetric time", but instead say that this is the "law of nature", or that "nature behaves this way" or simply "Gog made it this way" (pick any you like most).

Yes, I understand perfectly that there is no place for god to suddenly change properties of 'compound' quantitites, and that it doesn't govern how our everyday life goes. But something, that is behind "big truth table of mutual definitions" of basic quantities, can certainly screw it up real bad. We don't know why it doesn't. We define it doesn't.

 

[Alexander]

What we OBSERVE is that some quantities (time, space, angle, velocity, phase, and some others) are defined by US in such way that change in them does not affect anything. That is what we get from OBSERVATIONS. Mathematical consequences of this independence (=invariance) of universe on some quantities is interesting: all conservation laws, both relativities, quantum mechanics, existence of virtual particles and all known forces follow mathematically. And we call these mathematical consequences of basic symmetries as "natural laws" and "natural phenomena".

So, main premises to derive practically all we see is that that some quantities (like time, space, direction, velocity, phase, etc) are completely immaterial for universe, kinda "nonexistent" (or "non-physical") quantities.