Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Science and the universe

  1. Nov 21, 2006 #1
    If we say that science and technology is a way to manipulate matter in the course of a timespan on a 'higher layer', what implications would this have?

    We define a higher layer as a way of programming, for instance in the programming language C, you have to do 'low level' managment of memory and so forth, while in Perl, you don't need to do this.
    And on the lowest level is actually binary numbers, just 0 and 1, or so called machine code.
    Level equals layer in this analogy.

    Now assuming that the universe has some kind of fundamental or primordial entity, if we say that an object in the world has a total amount of mass 100%, then we can say that with science, we can manipulate only 50% of the matter, because we're not controlling the quantum mechanics, or the strings, or even on a molecular level.

    Once we learn how to control all of these things, down to the most fundamental entity, would we then be controlling time too?
    If time is just an emergent property of mass, then it seems to me we could indeed do pretty much anything that the universe itself can do, only we would consciously do it.

    If the universe is a deterministic system which unfolds itself based on the rules that are in place, then we should in theory be able to do exactly what the universe is doing and has done ever since its creation once we reach a certain level of knowledge.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 22, 2006 #2
    I'm not sure if what I have to add here has to do with your thread but I was ruminating along a similar line to the title of this thread.

    When we use a clock to measure time and where we use the litmus test or VU meters or the richter scale and celcius or fahrenheit we are layering secondary methods of measuring the universe. The methods are secondary to the primary methods which would be where we use the tools that we adopted through the evolutionary processes, handed to us by the mechanisms of the universe such as brains, eyes, touch, taste and the other senses.

    I wonder if we separate ourselves from - rather than get closer to - an understanding of the universe when we use the man-made and contrived instruments of science to describe the universe when we have some very well developed senses that can offer an interpretation of it. Our senses may offer an approximation that is closer to reality than the interpretation of what might be viewed as a method that is developed by a human's state of ignorance (about the universe) at a given time. Just a thought.
  4. Nov 28, 2006 #3
    Firstly, science is an interpretation of the universe. It's cognitive principles allow humans to envision concepts like "controlling matter" or "true spacetime."

    I don't see how determinism still survives for people wanting to control the whole universe. It can't be done. On certain scales perhaps, but not on a level that "represents all other levels completely"

    It's abstract for a human to wonder the results of him or her controlling the entire universe. This leads to "is the universe predetermined?"

    Another thing that poppes up here is "Is the universe totally conceivable to humans?" I think the answer is widely "no," with such things like "collapse of the wavefunction," "quantum logic," and "quantum consciousness," it seems as if quantum physics is a regime of anti-determinism for all scientists. So, I would indeed question that.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook