Is Nature playing fair with Krauss Object?

[joigus]

50 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

OK. I am sorry. And I was wrong: I have no doubt about his intellectual abilities.

+1.

I think I speak for most everybody here (although I cannot be sure) if I say that there seems to be a kernel of anthropocentrism in your argument. Am I right?

That's what's making me uncomfortable, anyway. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited June 24, 2020 by joigus
minor correction

[michel123456]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

+1.

I think I speak for most everybody here (although I cannot be sure) if I say that there seems to be a kernel of anthropocentrism in your argument. Am I right?

That's what's making me uncomfortable, anyway. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Against anthropocentrism.

The current paradigm is that we the humans are the lucky ones in the middle of the time line of the universe. To me it is highly unlikely.

We know that we are not in the center of the Universe: our position is totally random. We are "lost in space". But we (you) believe that we are in a central position in time. I disagree. My opinion is that we  should consider space & time in exactly the same way: we are lost in space & we are lost in time. Our observation of the universe has nothing special, it is a representative image of the universe and almost identical for any observer in space & in time.

That shouldn't be so difficult to accept, it is simply a slightest extension of the cosmological principle.

I understand that it may be difficult to swallow, since it goes against the "life of the Universe" accepted Theory. But when a Theory gives you the result that in a few billion years, the future scientists will live in a middle age universe made up of one single galaxy inside a huge void, I think that the least one should do is to raise some doubt.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by michel123456

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Against anthropocentrism.

The current paradigm is that we the humans are the lucky ones in the middle of the time line of the universe. To me it is highly unlikely.

We know that we are not in the center of the Universe: our position is totally random. We are "lost in space". But we (you) believe that we are in a central position in time.

Can you point to the evidence that this “central position in time” is the paradigm?

Quote

I disagree. My opinion is that we  should consider space & time in exactly the same way: we are lost in space & we are lost in time. Our observation of the universe has nothing special, it is a representative image of the universe and almost identical for any observer in space & in time.

Will you address the observation that zapatos made about “special” vs “preferred”?

 

 

[michel123456]

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you point to the evidence that this “central position in time” is the paradigm?

Well, the paradigm states that we are not close to the beginning: the BB supposedly happened 13,8 BY ago.

And as far as I know, not any one of existing Theories about the fate of the universe states that the time Now is close to its end.

On 6/22/2020 at 5:46 PM, zapatos said:

They are NOT the exact same things.

You are confusing the word "special" with the word "preferred".

We don't laugh at the the idea of the Earth being in a special place, we laugh at the idea that the Earth might be in a preferred place.

When you were but a wee child and your mother said you were "her special boy", she simply meant you held some significance for her. You were 'neat', or 'cool'. She wasn't implying that the universe was centered on you.

Similarly, we live in a special time and place. We witnessed the first time humans detected gravity waves and the invention of the autostereogram. If we weren't at this location (on Earth) at this time, we could not have seen that with our own eyes. Unfortunately we did not exist at that special time when the four fundamental forces were combined, but we are lucky to live at the special time when all these superclusters can be detected. And that is really neat.

 

In this case you must disagree with the cosmological principle. The dinosaurs were living on the other side of the galaxy, in another location & another time & thus witnessed a different universe because the universe is changing.

The only one who is observing the same universe than we do is some E.T. on another planet somewhere else in the universe, right Now. But Universal Now does not exist. Or am I wrong?

Edited June 24, 2020 by michel123456

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

In this case you must disagree with the cosmological principle.

No, I do not disagree with the cosmological principle. It does however appear that you don't understand the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle does not state that everyone will see the same thing at all times. Which should be obvious to anyone who recognizes that things change over time.

[michel123456]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, I do not disagree with the cosmological principle. It does however appear that you don't understand the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle does not state that everyone will see the same thing at all times. Which should be obvious to anyone who recognizes that things change over time.

Read again the cosmological principle: from wiki

Quote

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.^[1]

The "is playing fair with scientists" part is the reason of the title of this thread.

Following Krauss argument, in accordance to todays paradigm, in the future the universe will not "play fair". It will show a single galaxy in a huge void with no evidence at all for the existence of billion galaxies or the BB. Something does not sound good here.

If the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, then the dinosaurs should have taken the same conclusion. And a future astronomer will make the same strong philosophical statement. If our model of the universe does not allow to some observer to make this statement, then most probably our model is wrong.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Against anthropocentrism.

Then your starting position of whether the universe is fair (to us?) is confusing me. Is that meant as a figure of speech?

I also think the distinction @zapatos has made about "special" and "preferred" is relevant. +1

I do not believe in mysteries; there's not mystery in science, but I do believe in puzzles in science. The fact that conscience has appeared in this part of the universe when, in cosmological terms, the surface of last scattering is about to disappear behind the kinematical horizon to such DeSitter observers as ourselves (experimental fact) is a puzzle. I can refer you to cosmologists who enjoy the prestige I lack, and share the same puzzlement. Maybe it's not something to be kept on the front burner of cosmology, so to speak, but it's definitely worth thinking about.

Whether that is causally related to the appearance of conscience, which has been falteringly suggested, is another matter; but an apparent --repeat, apparent-- element of serendipity I think cannot be denied. Maybe it's some kind of mirage or illusion (mind you: Nature sometimes presents these to us; like the illusion of design in organisms, that's to be dispelled by the theory of evolution.) But in that case, it's well worth some scientific discussion IMO.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Following Krauss argument, in accordance to todays paradigm, in the future the universe will not "play fair". It will show a single galaxy in a huge void with no evidence at all for the existence of billion galaxies or the BB.

How is that not fair? It will look exactly the same to observers from any of those other billions of galaxies as it looks to us.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

Well, the paradigm states that we are not close to the beginning: the BB supposedly happened 13,8 BY ago.

So if we’re near the middle, then it must also state that the universe will end in another ~10-15 BY.

Quote

And as far as I know, not any one of existing Theories about the fate of the universe states that the time Now is close to its end.

That still doesn’t get you to “middle”

 

Your wiki quote

Quote

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.^[1]

Nothing here says the universe can’t change - what part do you think implies that?

Also, you omitted the part where this is a quote from one astronomer. In this case, “playing fair” might be compared to creationism, where some proponents claim dinosaur fossils were buried to trick people. “Playing fair” means this is not happening. Scientific inquiry can yield results that help our understanding.

 

The beginning of the article gives a more general explanation 

Quote

In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.

Note the emphasis on “large-scale” structure. No issues of dinosaurs, no implication that things can’t change.

[pzkpfw]

13 hours ago, michel123456 said:

...

What you seem to say is that "the universe looks DIFFERENT whoever and wherever you are because the universe is CHANGING" (sorry for putting words in your mouth).

Nope, I'm saying that because the universe is changing the Universe will look different at different times.

Your quote from wiki that you based the above on was: "the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are" ... note that that does not say "whenever".

 

Question: do you accept the "big bang theory"?

Follow-up: do you think an observer of the Universe 1 hour after the BB would see the same thing we do now?

Edited June 24, 2020 by pzkpfw

[swansont]

As an analogy, a set of twins will look the same. But compared to each other, at the same age, not comparing different ages.

[michel123456]

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

As an analogy, a set of twins will look the same. But compared to each other, at the same age, not comparing different ages.

Oh. Does that mean that the entire Universe is now?

32 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Nope, I'm saying that because the universe is changing the Universe will look different at different times.

Your quote from wiki that you based the above on was: "the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are" ... note that that does not say "whenever".

 

Question: do you accept the "big bang theory"?

Follow-up: do you think an observer of the Universe 1 hour after the BB would see the same thing we do now?

Indeed the whenever has been introduced by me.

It does not bother me that the universe is changing, expanding, faster. it bothers me when the Theory predicts a silly situation where the universe becomes incomprehensible. Imagine yourself as an observer in this future krauss galaxy. You are observing the sky and no trace of the BB. You are discussing with another guy and ask him if accepts the BB Theory. The other guy answers: What are you talking about? (He knows nothing about the BB Theory because he is observing a single Galaxy inside a huge void.) Isn't that complete bogus? Similarly, if this situation is possible, why would I accept that the universe is playing fair with me today? Why would I accept the cosmological principle today if it does not count tomorrow?

Edited June 24, 2020 by michel123456

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Oh. Does that mean that the entire Universe is now?

Strange already asked you not to steer this thread in that direction. I agree with that request.

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

How is that not fair? It will look exactly the same to observers from any of those other billions of galaxies as it looks to us.

That means it will be unfair for everybody.

Just now, swansont said:

Strange already asked you not to steer this thread in that direction. I agree with that request.

But that is related. If you believe in Universal Now or not. One must be consistent: if you are refuting Universal Now you cannot invoke it for another explanation. You cannot cherry picking explanations that contradict the other in order to explain the universe.

And i am glad that you feel uncomfortable about it.

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

That means it will be unfair for everybody.

Note: spontaneous opinions will follow, not supported by references at this time.

I do not see that aspect of the cosmological principle. Here is more of a philosophical angle: Every scientist is given the same fair chance at observing and documenting how the universe looks at the time the scientist is active. It's a matter of leaving behind something that future scientists can use to find out about (or to not forget about) the fact that universe used to look different; other galaxies used to be visible. 

We do not have observations from our point in universe from before the dawn of humankind and we may or may not get hold of such observations in the future, left behind for us or given to us. But whether it will happen or not is not important, the points that each scientist in the universe, at any time*, have the same fair chance to discover some artefacts, signals or other left behind by earlier scientists telling how the universe looked at that time. (Within a reasonable distance due to limited speed of light.) 

 

*) When universe is able to support life as we know it. Of course not, for instance, too early when universe was too hot and dense.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Ghideon
clarified "at any time"

[swansont]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

But that is related. If you believe in Universal Now or not. One must be consistent: if you are refuting Universal Now you cannot invoke it for another explanation. You cannot cherry picking explanations that contradict the other in order to explain the universe.

It has nothing to do with a universal now, which is a discredited notion, as it is inconsistent with physics. It’s not being invoked. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

That means it will be unfair for everybody.

 

Dig in your heels. Never give in. Never concede a point. It will make you look weak.

[pzkpfw]

3 hours ago, michel123456 said:

...

It does not bother me that the universe is changing, expanding, faster. it bothers me when the Theory predicts a silly situation where the universe becomes incomprehensible. Imagine yourself as an observer in this future krauss galaxy. You are observing the sky and no trace of the BB. You are discussing with another guy and ask him if accepts the BB Theory. The other guy answers: What are you talking about? (He knows nothing about the BB Theory because he is observing a single Galaxy inside a huge void.) Isn't that complete bogus? Similarly, if this situation is possible, why would I accept that the universe is playing fair with me today? Why would I accept the cosmological principle today if it does not count tomorrow?

"Silly" is your emotional interpretation of the situation, that's not science.

In your scenario, how would the hypothetical me be asking the other about the BB? Where did I get information from that he didn't have?

If you have evidence that the cosmological principle is wrong today, present it.

If you have evidence that the cosmological principle would be wrong for observers in the future, present it.

NB: that observers in the future might observe a "different" Universe than observers today, is not a violation of the cosmological principle.

[michel123456]

8 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

NB: that observers in the future might observe a "different" Universe than observers today, is not a violation of the cosmological principle.

Even if these observers infer different physics?

Edited June 25, 2020 by michel123456

[pzkpfw]

19 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Even if these observers infer different physics?

Because the Universe is changing and they are observing at different times, yes, that's possible.

Will you answer my questions?

1. Do you think an observer of the Universe 1 hour after the BB would see the same thing we do now?

2. In your scenario, how would the hypothetical me be asking the other about the BB? Where did I get information from that he didn't have?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Even if these observers infer different physics?

No, they will not infer different physics, if you mean that the physics will be contradictory. They may not have enough data to construct some physics (should knowledge be lost), but the physics they have will be the same.

[michel123456]

1 hour ago, pzkpfw said:

Because the Universe is changing and they are observing at different times, yes, that's possible.

Will you answer my questions?

1. Do you think an observer of the Universe 1 hour after the BB would see the same thing we do now?

2. In your scenario, how would the hypothetical me be asking the other about the BB? Where did I get information from that he didn't have?

1. No, he will not see the same thing as we do now. But he would know about the BB. So no problem to me.

2. Good question: he would live in a universe without the BB.  He would not get any information about the BB. He may suspect that his galaxy has been created woof just like that by some kind of magic, or that his galaxy was always there & will remain forever. Anyway he would have no clue about the BB & thus should base his physics on some other Theory. So that is a problem to me.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, they will not infer different physics.

Please explain.

They will live in a world without CMB

[swansont]

1 minute ago, michel123456 said:

1. No, he will not see the same thing as we do now. But he would know about the BB. So no problem to me.

2. Good question: he would live in a universe without the BB.  He would not get any information about the BB. He may suspect that his galaxy has been created woof just like that by some kind of magic, or that his galaxy was always there & will remain forever. Anyway he would have no clue about the BB & thus should base his physics on some other Theory. So that is a problem to me.

You must have a problem with archaeology and paleontology then, too. Some natural event wipes out evidence, and now we have no clue about some bit of history. 

[michel123456]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

You must have a problem with archaeology and paleontology then, too. Some natural event wipes out evidence, and now we have no clue about some bit of history. 

There is no cosmological principle in archaeology, AFAIK

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, they will not infer different physics, if you mean that the physics will be contradictory. They may not have enough data to construct some physics (should knowledge be lost), but the physics they have will be the same.

There again, according to your reasoning, we must consider ourselves as the lucky ones that have access to all the information while the other observers in the far future will not have that chance.

Doesn't that ring a bell to you? Do you accept that idea without an inch of scepticism?

[swansont]

1 minute ago, michel123456 said:

There is no cosmological principle in archaeology, AFAIK

There is the equivalent, in the part you seem to be worried about. In fact, all scientific endeavors proceed with the notion that the same basic natural rules apply, and the idea that we are not being "tricked"

For archaeology, we find can dig things up that tell us about past civilizations, because they interacted with each other in the same basic ways we do now. And yet, there was a stone age, a bronze age, an industrial age, a computer age, etc. — things have changed over time. Also that information can be lost. There may be some groups that lived whose entire existence has been wiped out and we will never know about them.