Theory of everything of final theory

[Eise]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Obviously the universe coming into being by "pure chance" or a "cosmic coincidence" is scientific and while we have no direct evidence, we do have a methodology to explain that chance.

We have no evidence, or even hint, that natural constants or even worse, laws of nature, can be different from what they are. Of course, that there might be different universes with different natural constants or laws of nature is logically consistent with our existence, but so is an intelligent designer that created the universe as it is. And also with the multiverse I think you cannot avoid 'turtles all the way down'. For the multiverse to be a scientific explanation, one needs an explanans. In my opinion that would mean a 'metaverse' that determines how laws of nature can vary, and e.g. determines the chance distribution of laws and or constants. 

Another point is that science uses the presupposition that laws of nature are the same always and everywhere. Not assuming this would make science impossible. So attributing the laws of nature and natural constants to sheer chance is just the same showstopper as 'God did it'.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

It may not explain why, [which is more a philosophical question then a scientific one] but it must be factual in that if any of the constants were not as they are, and if any of the properties were not as they are, we would not be here to contemplate it. Since we are here to contemplate it, it appears that the apparent fine tuning to enable life to evolve to simply be a chance coincidence, brought about by those conditions.

Without hint or evidence that the constants can have different values, there is no reason to suppose 'fine tuning'. Maybe the standard model is the last word. Maybe it isn't. Science may find that out, or not, but it should be based on (empirical) evidence. As long as that is missing, 'we don't know' is simply the only scientifically based reaction we can give at this moment. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

By observing and gathering data from many experiments that have been conducted, we are able to [in my opinion anyway] speculate reasonably logically, that our universe arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam among many other similar but slightly different fluctuations, with ours having the necessary properties and constants to be as we observe today.

Those experiments are necessarily done in our universe, and the results are according to the laws of nature in our universe. How could one conclude from that to the existence of universes with other laws of nature?

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Eise

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

We have no evidence, or even hint, that natural constants or even worse, laws of nature, can be different from what they are. Of course, that there might be different universes with different natural constants or laws of nature is logically consistent with our existence, but so is an intelligent designer that created the universe as it is. And also with the multiverse I think you cannot avoid 'turtles all the way down'. For the multiverse to be a scientific explanation, one needs an explanans. In my opinion that would mean a 'metaverse' that determines how laws of nature can vary, and e.g. determines the chance distribution of laws and or constants. 

If different universes were existing, it is quite logical that different constants could also pertain to them...not sure how you can say they wouldn't. And any future validated QGT could be evidence or otherwise of that scenario. On the other hand ID or any other supernatural means is unscientific and non falsifiable.

Quote

Another point is that science uses the presupposition that laws of nature are the same always and everywhere. Not assuming this would make science impossible. So attributing the laws of nature and natural constants to sheer chance is just the same showstopper as 'God did it'.

Again I am at a loss, how you can equate a speculative chance fluctuation in the quantum foam, that may or may not be evidenced with a future validated QGT, with some unscientific divine myth. 

Quote

Without hint or evidence that the constants can have different values, there is no reason to suppose 'fine tuning'. Maybe the standard model is the last word. Maybe it isn't. Science may find that out, or not, but it should be based on (empirical) evidence. As long as that is missing, 'we don't know' is simply the only scientifically based reaction we can give at this moment. 

Agreed that fine tuning is a bad choice of words, and that it only applies to the impetus for the occurence of abiogenisis and evolution of life in our universe, and is just one of probable many in the quantum foam. And of course "we don't know" has already been agreed upon, although in my opinion, the chance option is still the highly favoured position.

Quote

Those experiments are necessarily done in our universe, and the results are according to the laws of nature in our universe. How could one conclude from that to the existence of universes with other laws of nature?

I'm saying that today's particle accelerators etc, have shown that space and time arose from a hotter, denser universe, where we are able to reasonably assume the unification of the four forces at an early time, the creation of matter as pressures and temperatures dropped, further to atomic nuclei and I guess you probably know the rest of the probable accepted evolution of the universe. All under the constants and laws associated with our spacetime. Obviously the closer we go back to the 10-43 second period, the less certain our assumptions are, and again, any further back to the quantum/Planck era is stepping into speculation, but I add, reasonable speculation that could one day be supported by evidence.

[Eise]

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

If different universes were existing, it is quite logical that different constants could also pertain to them

It is logically possible. But we have no idea if it is physically possible. If there are other universes, maybe they all have exactly the same laws of nature?

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

On the other hand ID or any other supernatural means is unscientific and non falsifiable.

As possibly is the existence of other universes. If the laws of nature are different in other universes, we possibly cannot even recognise it. Other laws of nature implies that causal relationships are different. But we are measuring here, in our universe, where we at least expect that the laws of nature are uniform. And if every universe is causally closed, then per definition we cannot know that other universes exist. So that idea is also not falsifiable, and therefore just as non-scientific as any form of ID. 

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

gain I am at a loss, how you can equate a speculative chance fluctuation in the quantum foam, that may or may not be evidenced with a future validated QGT, with some unscientific divine myth. 

We can look again if we have a valid QGT. The problem is however, that until then the multiverse is a showstopper, just as ID. Again, we do not know if the laws of nature, or their constants, can be different at all.

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously the closer we go back to the 10-43 second period, the less certain our assumptions are, and again, any further back to the quantum/Planck era is stepping into speculation, but I add, reasonable speculation that could one day be supported by evidence

I have nothing against speculation, as long it is declared as such. But what the empirical evidence is worth, when we have done our experiments in our universe, I have no idea. And neither have you.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

It is logically possible. But we have no idea if it is physically possible. If there are other universes, maybe they all have exactly the same laws of nature?

Yes, certainly, but either way that does not invalidate my point of the chance evolving of our universe.

Quote

As possibly is the existence of other universes. If the laws of nature are different in other universes, we possibly cannot even recognise it. Other laws of nature implies that causal relationships are different. But we are measuring here, in our universe, where we at least expect that the laws of nature are uniform. And if every universe is causally closed, then per definition we cannot know that other universes exist. So that idea is also not falsifiable, and therefore just as non-scientific as any form of ID. 

Not sure if that comparison is valid...we also can know nothing beyond our observable horizon in our own universe, but we also know it certainly exists.

Quote

We can look again if we have a valid QGT. The problem is however, that until then the multiverse is a showstopper, just as ID. Again, we do not know if the laws of nature, or their constants, can be different at all.

I disagree...the multi-verse speculation is not a showstopper as you say. Whereas ID certainly is as it completely short circuits any further debate. Perhaps the multi-verse scenario is infinite and eternal, although admittedly I personally cringe at that. Again maybe the speculative quantum foam is the nothing that most of us define and mean as nothing.

Quote

I have nothing against speculation, as long it is declared as such. But what the empirical evidence is worth, when we have done our experiments in our universe, I have no idea. And neither have you.

If I had a dollar for every time I have declared what are speculative scenarios as speculative, I would be a rich man.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, certainly, but either way that does not invalidate my point of the chance evolving of our universe.

Chance and the multiverse.

Perhaps your view of both chance and the multixxx is to simplistic?

If you look at some chemical kinetics you will see another (more complex) viewpoint of both subjects.

For instance you are assuming a single step in your use of the word chance.

What about multistep?

[fibonacii1.601836]

i apreciate you dosent mater if that idea is true or false 

science is a machine, fuel is hypothesis,ideas,theories etc.

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

Chance and the multiverse.

I suppose it is a speculative answer to the apparent  "fine tuning" enigma.

Quote

 

Perhaps your view of both chance and the multixxx is to simplistic?

If you look at some chemical kinetics you will see another (more complex) viewpoint of both subjects.

For instance you are assuming a single step in your use of the word chance.

What about multistep?

 

Perhaps.   What are your speculative thoughts on such possible multi steps?

 

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

I suppose it is a speculative answer to the apparent  "fine tuning" enigma.

Perhaps.   What are your speculative thoughts on such possible multi steps?

 

Well the underlying theory of Chemical Kinetics (the time rate of progress of a chemical reaction) is found by considering the probability of the reactant species meeting, since they can't react without meeting.

Boy meets girl stuff you know.

However many chemical reaction are not simply A plus B meet and go straight to C plus D

This is a single step

On many occasions intermediate temporary products are formed which finally turn into C and D.

This is multistep and only one of these may depend upon chance.

Let us say the reaction is such that when A & B meet they form AB first.
The composite AB then breaks up into C & D.

The first step is probabilistic (chance) the second is guaranteed so deterministic.

Does this help?

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

The first step is probabilistic (chance) the second is guaranteed so deterministic.

Does this help?

Yeah, somewhat. I believe swansont was trying to drum that into my big fat head earlier on.

[swansont]

On 1/7/2019 at 3:38 AM, Eise said:

We have no evidence, or even hint, that natural constants or even worse, laws of nature, can be different from what they are.

Indeed. There are a number of laws of physics that are derived from symmetries. Conservation of energy, and of linear and angular momentum, for starters. And some of the other laws are simply restatements of these, though that's not always obvious (introductory physics usually starts with forces and ends up with energy conservation, but you could instead work it the other way around. But you can employ Lagrangians, which uses energy)

It's the fundamental constants that we have no clue about, AFAIK. They are not a result of the theories we have developed. But that's not to say we won't discover some relationship between or constraint on them at some point in the future.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Indeed. There are a number of laws of physics that are derived from symmetries. Conservation of energy, and of linear and angular momentum. And some of the other laws are simply restatements of these, though that's not always obvious (introductory physics usually starts with forces and ends up with energy conservation, but you could instead work it the other way around. But you can employ Lagrangians, which uses energy)

And I suppose this comes back to a version of the anthropic principle. A universe where these sort of basic symmetries did not exist would be unimaginably different from this and would quite possibly not be able to support life (or even any sort of consistent structures such as stars and galaxies).

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

And I suppose this comes back to a version of the anthropic principle. A universe where these sort of basic symmetries did not exist would be unimaginably different from this and would quite possibly not be able to support life (or even any sort of consistent structures such as stars and galaxies).

It's hard for me to see how they could exist. And these symmetries seem to be coupled. A system in which angular momentum was not conserved probably implies that energy is not — if things can spontaneously start to spin (or stop spinning), they must violate conservation of energy. If energy can suddenly appear, what stops the spontaneous gravitational collapse of the universe?

If there's a workable path in there, it must have some dependencies that are not immediately obvious.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This speculation has failed to find evidence in support, and seems to rely solely on intuition and wishful thinking. Per the rules for this section, I'm going to close it. Please don't bring this subject up again until you have some kind of supportive reasoning beyond gut feelings.