The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 4th, 2019, 5:36 pm

A recent study has provided evidence that the laws of physics (nature) can change in time, indicating that the Universe may be infinite and has no beginning.

Laws of physics may change across the universe
Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"

The findings may imply that the Universe is infinite.
Sources:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/ ... universal/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 004112.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -universe/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html

Question: What would the implications be if it were to be true?

I've noticed that some scientists are complaining of religious practices. Some say that astrophysics is philosophy disguised as a science.

The Big Bang theory was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory and helped to promote it. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.

Course of events:
In 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.

With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
Source: https://www.space.com/31055-removing-co ... under.html

I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "biggest blunder" while recent studies are claiming that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also, to believe in a Cosmic Egg story is one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who created a later to be found correct contradicting theory, is another. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist.

Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... -big-bang/

Why did Albert Einstein give up his theory?

The official story is that Albert Einstein was forced to admit that he was wrong by discoveries of Edwin Hubble. However, recently re-discovered papers show that Albert Einstein "habitually" misspelled the name of Hubble as "Hubbel", indicating that he may not have taken his discoveries serious.
It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
It appears to disprove the official story that Hubble's discovery forced Albert Einstein to admit that he made a mistake.

Why did Albert Einstein decide to promote the Big Bang theory? If there were a motive, might it still be relevant today? There may be value in the answer, to improve the quest for truth in the future or maybe to protect or improve societal interests.

Some scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion:
1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem

You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... space-2019
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space
The Horizon Problem may provide a clue that it is not likely that the Big Bang theory is correct.
In our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn't repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that's just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across and earth is in the exact middle of the Universe.

If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born.
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe- ... inite.html

If nature can change in time and if the Universe does not have a beginning, what would the implications be when humans would withdraw from the "Cosmic Egg" aka Big Bang story?

If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3694
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by LuckyR » October 5th, 2019, 4:32 am

I believe the Cosmology Forum is that way.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 5th, 2019, 8:04 am

LuckyR wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 4:32 am
I believe the Cosmology Forum is that way.
Speculation on implications of science belongs to philosophy.

A perspective of philosopher Charles Wagner:
I believe that the world is on the brink of a revolution in thought unlike any seen since the overthrow of Ptolemic geocentrism. Two of the major ideas that have permeated the thinking of the 20th century are under attack and will probably be overturned in the next millenium. These two ideas currently in a state of crisis are darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology. The fall of big bang cosmology will probably be worse, since it will likely take with it the current thinking in particle physics and thermodynamics. The main reasons for these crises lie in the fact that both cosmology and evolution seem to be exempt from the scientific requirement that they be supported by observation and experimentation. They are grounded in deductive, rather than inductive logic. They fail to see the simple logical error of assuming that if all dogs have tails, and this animal has a tail, then it must be a dog. In short, these two ideas come closer to being religious beliefs than scientific theories. Worse yet, in spite of a growing body of observational evidence to falsify them, both of these theories continue to be staunchly defended by their supporters. "If we only make a few adjustments..."
The investigation into the origin of the Big Bang theory led to the discovery that Albert Einstein may have been motivated to promote the Big Bang theory for a yet unknown motive. I wonder, what may those interests have been? What would the true implications be of for example the idea that the Universe is infinite?

Indirectly, the idea that the Universe has a limited size and originates from a accidentally exploded primordial atom may be at the basis of fundamental ideas such as the idea that the human mind originates from accidental chemistry in the brains or that evolution is driven by random chance.

Darwin's ideas were proven wrong. There is evidence that evolution is also horizontal, on the basis of what is consumed. Evolution may not originate from random variation.
darwin-wrong.jpg
darwin-wrong.jpg (43.42 KiB) Viewed 313 times
A journalist recounts the epic story of modern challenges to evolutionary dogma (2019)
Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... win-wrong/

When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how plausible would some fundamental ideas of modern humanity remain?

It may be philosophy's task to explore such concepts before they actually become in effect, in order to respond intelligently in the best way.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2945
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Felix » October 5th, 2019, 1:22 pm

arjand: When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how plausible would some fundamental ideas of modern humanity remain?
You can't model an open infinite Universe, you have to start with the premise (bias) that it's a closed system and so far the observations and calculations have supported that idea. Minor statistical variations in the age or fundamental constants of the Universe do not threaten the prevailing theory, but if the anomalies start piling up, it's another story.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 5th, 2019, 4:09 pm

There is a growing disagreement between different observations with regard to the speed of the expansion of the Universe.

Is everything we know about the universe's expansion WRONG? Measurements suggest it's growing faster than any theory can explain

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... plain.html

At the time that Hubble suggested the Doppler interpretation for the observed redshift there was another theory emerging called "tired light". It would have made Albert Einstein's original theory plausible at that time.
The cosmological model based on the tired light theory gets rid of the problems that are related to Big Bang, that is, the super velocity problem, the horizon effect, and the problem of the beginning of the Cosmos. Moreover, the model explains the cosmic microwave background radiation as a natural result of the tired light effect, and therefore, Olbers’ paradox is disappeared. Based on the tired light theory and together from the cosmological principle, the Cosmos is infinite and eternal.
https://www.intechopen.com/books/redefi ... e-big-bang

These developments show that there is a potential for valuable results on the basis of philosophical theories. When can be considered that what is perceived as irrefutable truths are actually potentially implausible idea's, one can start over and combine information from many sources to create new perspectives.

What can explain the origin of life and the Universe? Will observation ever be able to provide an answer or does it require philosophy?

If the Universe is infinite and has no beginning that may imply that humans will require philosophy to make sense of existence. How else?

In a recent discussion on a science forum the first reply was the following with regard to the place of philosophy:
Philosophy is bunk.

...

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
Me: Is it not that formulating a perspective on how science ought to function is called philosophy?

Philosophy lays at the basis of science. First philosophy, then science. (human wisdom: think before you act).
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
Considering the developments in Cosmology, it may be that philosophy could be essential for the future of humanity and even for explaining the Universe.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 680
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by h_k_s » October 5th, 2019, 4:17 pm

arjand wrote:
October 4th, 2019, 5:36 pm
A recent study has provided evidence that the laws of physics (nature) can change in time, indicating that the Universe may be infinite and has no beginning.

Laws of physics may change across the universe
Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"

The findings may imply that the Universe is infinite.
Sources:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/ ... universal/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 004112.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -universe/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html

Question: What would the implications be if it were to be true?

I've noticed that some scientists are complaining of religious practices. Some say that astrophysics is philosophy disguised as a science.

The Big Bang theory was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory and helped to promote it. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.

Course of events:
In 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.

With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.

Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
Source: https://www.space.com/31055-removing-co ... under.html

I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "biggest blunder" while recent studies are claiming that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also, to believe in a Cosmic Egg story is one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who created a later to be found correct contradicting theory, is another. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist.

Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... -big-bang/

Why did Albert Einstein give up his theory?

The official story is that Albert Einstein was forced to admit that he was wrong by discoveries of Edwin Hubble. However, recently re-discovered papers show that Albert Einstein "habitually" misspelled the name of Hubble as "Hubbel", indicating that he may not have taken his discoveries serious.
It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.

April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
It appears to disprove the official story that Hubble's discovery forced Albert Einstein to admit that he made a mistake.

Why did Albert Einstein decide to promote the Big Bang theory? If there were a motive, might it still be relevant today? There may be value in the answer, to improve the quest for truth in the future or maybe to protect or improve societal interests.

Some scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion:
1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem

You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... space-2019
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space
The Horizon Problem may provide a clue that it is not likely that the Big Bang theory is correct.
In our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn't repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that's just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across and earth is in the exact middle of the Universe.

If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born.
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe- ... inite.html

If nature can change in time and if the Universe does not have a beginning, what would the implications be when humans would withdraw from the "Cosmic Egg" aka Big Bang story?

If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?
A more simple example that in physics a so-called "law" is not a law is the former law of conservation of matter.

Prior to July 16, 1945 it was believed that atoms and the components of atoms could not be "destroyed".

However that all changed at precisely 0529AM on that date, when this all changed, and the theory of E=MC2 took over.

So as of July 17, all physics books in high schools and colleges and grad schools were then obsolete and all had to be rewritten. All physics exams had to be rewritten as well. And everyone who had made science their religion was shaken to the core.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 680
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by h_k_s » October 5th, 2019, 4:20 pm

Felix wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 1:22 pm
arjand: When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how plausible would some fundamental ideas of modern humanity remain?
You can't model an open infinite Universe, you have to start with the premise (bias) that it's a closed system and so far the observations and calculations have supported that idea. Minor statistical variations in the age or fundamental constants of the Universe do not threaten the prevailing theory, but if the anomalies start piling up, it's another story.
You @Felix are precisely right and it is very good that you have reminded of this truth again.

It is anomalies that lead to disproof of any notion or concept calling itself true, not just in science but also in philosophy and in religion.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3694
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by LuckyR » October 5th, 2019, 8:27 pm

arjand wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 8:04 am
LuckyR wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 4:32 am
I believe the Cosmology Forum is that way.
Speculation on implications of science belongs to philosophy.

A perspective of philosopher Charles Wagner:
I believe that the world is on the brink of a revolution in thought unlike any seen since the overthrow of Ptolemic geocentrism. Two of the major ideas that have permeated the thinking of the 20th century are under attack and will probably be overturned in the next millenium. These two ideas currently in a state of crisis are darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology. The fall of big bang cosmology will probably be worse, since it will likely take with it the current thinking in particle physics and thermodynamics. The main reasons for these crises lie in the fact that both cosmology and evolution seem to be exempt from the scientific requirement that they be supported by observation and experimentation. They are grounded in deductive, rather than inductive logic. They fail to see the simple logical error of assuming that if all dogs have tails, and this animal has a tail, then it must be a dog. In short, these two ideas come closer to being religious beliefs than scientific theories. Worse yet, in spite of a growing body of observational evidence to falsify them, both of these theories continue to be staunchly defended by their supporters. "If we only make a few adjustments..."
The investigation into the origin of the Big Bang theory led to the discovery that Albert Einstein may have been motivated to promote the Big Bang theory for a yet unknown motive. I wonder, what may those interests have been? What would the true implications be of for example the idea that the Universe is infinite?

Indirectly, the idea that the Universe has a limited size and originates from a accidentally exploded primordial atom may be at the basis of fundamental ideas such as the idea that the human mind originates from accidental chemistry in the brains or that evolution is driven by random chance.

Darwin's ideas were proven wrong. There is evidence that evolution is also horizontal, on the basis of what is consumed. Evolution may not originate from random variation.

darwin-wrong.jpg
A journalist recounts the epic story of modern challenges to evolutionary dogma (2019)
Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... win-wrong/

When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how plausible would some fundamental ideas of modern humanity remain?

It may be philosophy's task to explore such concepts before they actually become in effect, in order to respond intelligently in the best way.
Change the "before" to "after", then you are getting somewhere. Philosophy is singularly unequipped to speculate on which cosmological theory is likely to be correct, though is the best medium to comment on the potential human implications of it.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 6th, 2019, 4:48 am

LuckyR wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 8:27 pm
Change the "before" to "after", then you are getting somewhere. Philosophy is singularly unequipped to speculate on which cosmological theory is likely to be correct, though is the best medium to comment on the potential human implications of it.
I do not agree. Observations may produce information but what can be perceived in that information and it's implications for humanity may need to be a subject for philosophy. The idea that science can produce fixed knowledge and absolute truths, i.e. an answer to questions "what is the origin of the Universe, life or the human mind" may be incorrect.

When the Universe is infinite and if nature can change in time that may imply that philosophy may need to be a fundamental part of Cosmology. Instead of stubbornly holding on to dogma's it would be possible to recognize and test perceptions based on observed information as philosophical concepts. It may result in quickly adaptable and flexible progress in the understanding of the Universe and while simultaneously reaping the fruits for humanity's progress.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3694
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by LuckyR » October 6th, 2019, 5:26 am

arjand wrote:
October 6th, 2019, 4:48 am
LuckyR wrote:
October 5th, 2019, 8:27 pm
Change the "before" to "after", then you are getting somewhere. Philosophy is singularly unequipped to speculate on which cosmological theory is likely to be correct, though is the best medium to comment on the potential human implications of it.
I do not agree. Observations may produce information but what can be perceived in that information and it's implications for humanity may need to be a subject for philosophy. The idea that science can produce fixed knowledge and absolute truths, i.e. an answer to questions "what is the origin of the Universe, life or the human mind" may be incorrect.

When the Universe is infinite and if nature can change in time that may imply that philosophy may need to be a fundamental part of Cosmology. Instead of stubbornly holding on to dogma's it would be possible to recognize and test perceptions based on observed information as philosophical concepts. It may result in quickly adaptable and flexible progress in the understanding of the Universe and while simultaneously reaping the fruits for humanity's progress.
You are, of course correct in your statements because you wisely interspersed the word "may" liberally about. Sure, just about anything may work out to be helpful.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 6th, 2019, 8:39 am

LuckyR wrote:
October 6th, 2019, 5:26 am
You are, of course correct in your statements because you wisely interspersed the word "may" liberally about. Sure, just about anything may work out to be helpful.
There are many 'ifs' involved, and if they were true, uncertainty with regard to the origin of nature and the Universe may be a factor to consider.

The "mays" are not just random to enable any argument to be posed. The topic started with a reference to recent studies and information that provide a clue that nature may change in time, and that the Universe may be infinite.

What would the implications be? It may be that there is a important role for philosophy, for thinking, in Cosmology of the future. It may implicate that there is an important role for philosophy in explaining existence and the human mind in the future.

Science may not be able to provide some answers.

As mentioned in a different topic. Science is looking back in time. It is an attempt to define.
Cambridge Dictionary: (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:
Knowledge resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of such is history.

If nature isn't fixed that has implications. History and thus science may not be valid in a different time or region of the Universe. And thus, it may be that besides learning from the past i.e. science, something else is needed to serve human existence in the best way.

What is the cause that religions could have existed? Why do even scientists and highly intelligent people tend to stubbornly hold on to dogma's? Philosophy may be a solution.

- ethics
- think beyond borders / beyond what can be observed
- create concepts that are not held on to as a dogma but that are accepted and continuously tested and valued on the basis of plausibility

These are merely quick suggestions. I started this topic simply to ask the question: if the Universe is infinite, what are the implications?
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1503
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by RJG » October 6th, 2019, 9:50 am

arjand wrote:I started this topic simply to ask the question: if the Universe is infinite, what are the implications?
If the universe is infinite, this means that matter-space-time have always (permanently) existed. (...which, by the way, is the only logical possibility, as X<X is a logical impossibility).

One implication is that science can now use this "fixed point of certainty" to better and more accurately explain the current state of our universe, instead of their nonsensical backwards speculations.

Also science, cosmology in particular, can put their time, energy, and funding ($$$) towards something more practical, instead of searching for something that does not exist (i.e. the 'beginning' of everything. Everything has 'always' existed; therefore has NO beginning!)

***
Very interesting topic, thanks for posting @arjand

User avatar
Lim1985
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: August 2nd, 2019, 1:05 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Lim1985 » October 6th, 2019, 3:40 pm

Is there one constant in physics which would be that there is constant change in nature?

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2945
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by Felix » October 6th, 2019, 4:10 pm

RJG: One implication is that science can now use this "fixed point of certainty" to better and more accurately explain the current state of our universe.
The observed cosmological facts do not accord with your "fixed point of certainty," so there's no reason to take it seriously.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
arjand
Posts: 68
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm

Re: Evidence that laws of physics (nature) can change in time: implications?

Post by arjand » October 6th, 2019, 4:23 pm

There is a growing academic movement that believes that everything in the Universe is conscious and connected. The field is called panpsychism.
This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/

If the theory is correct, some important discoveries about the Universe may be found within the human mind.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

Post Reply