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.
Steve3007
Posts: 5876
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » October 9th, 2019, 5:27 am

Since change over time is itself represented in the laws of physics, I think the idea that the laws of physics can change over time is arguably a self-contradiction. Whatever it is that is changing, that is the thing that we seek to represent using consistent laws of physics. If they are not consistent then they are either incomplete or inaccurate.

If something that we thought was a physical constant is found to change over time then it is, by definition, not a physical constant. It is a variable whose value is a function of (possibly among other things) time.

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 9th, 2019, 1:27 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 5:27 am
Whatever it is that is changing, that is the thing that we seek to represent using consistent laws of physics. If they are not consistent then they are either incomplete or inaccurate.

If something that we thought was a physical constant is found to change over time then it is, by definition, not a physical constant. It is a variable whose value is a function of (possibly among other things) time.
That is an assumption that may be incorrect. It assumes that the physical world originates from the past. That idea is held together with Dark Energy, Dark Matter and upon the discovery that the Hubble constant is not constant, a new suggestion for Dark Radiation.

In the case of the panpsychism theory everything in the Universe is conscious. It could mean that it evolves with intelligence that reaches beyond anything that existed in the past, i.e. not based on per-existing variables or as a function of time.
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 past physics serves a purpose for a conscious Universe that could explain an observed consistency (in the fraction of time that humans have been observing) while in it's essence the observed consistency is merely constant by the purpose that it serves.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

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

Post by Sculptor1 » October 9th, 2019, 2:21 pm

arjand wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 4:30 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 8th, 2019, 2:21 pm
It is clear you do not have the simplest grasp of the concept of infinity.
That may be true but with regard to the provided clue/example, if infinity has no beginning it logically knows no distance.
Indeed and therefore is not admissible to proof.

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 9th, 2019, 6:32 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 2:21 pm
Indeed and therefore is not admissible to proof.
You stated the following:
What would the evidence look like? Since we can only have a limited view, temporally and physically, of the universe it is not possible to see anything infinite. In fact no finite creature could ever prove infinitude.
I replied that a clue that evidence may be possible can be seen in spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement.

If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.

Infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.
Last year, physicists from MIT, the University of Vienna and other institutions provided strong evidence for quantum entanglement, and now, this same team of scientists has gone even further to confirm quantum entanglement.
https://www.space.com/41569-ancient-qua ... ement.html
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

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

Post by Sculptor1 » October 9th, 2019, 6:47 pm

arjand wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 6:32 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 2:21 pm
Indeed and therefore is not admissible to proof.
You stated the following:
What would the evidence look like? Since we can only have a limited view, temporally and physically, of the universe it is not possible to see anything infinite. In fact no finite creature could ever prove infinitude.
I replied that a clue that evidence may be possible can be seen in spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement.
This is NOT infinity. This is the moment I told you that you did not get the concept.

If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.

Infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.
No, Since the main thrust of your thread is a denial of uniformitarianism, you cannot make this claim stick any longer.
And this would not challenge the necessary claim that no finite being can prove infinity.
In fact due to the nature of infinity, there can be no time or place from which even an infinite being can ever finally answer the question. It is both logically and empirically impossible.
Last year, physicists from MIT, the University of Vienna and other institutions provided strong evidence for quantum entanglement, and now, this same team of scientists has gone even further to confirm quantum entanglement.
Not relevant.

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 10th, 2019, 1:57 am

arjand: If quantum entanglement is valid, then a pair of entangled particles can exist billions of light-years apart from one another and actions affecting the properties of one particle will affect the properties of the other particle instantly.
LOL, currently the experimental record is about 750 miles, the farther the distance a photon has to travel, the greater the chance of degradation and decoherence. This has no real relevance to the structure of the universe anyway.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

NickGaspar
Posts: 43
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am

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

Post by NickGaspar » October 10th, 2019, 3:22 am

There isn't a law in science saying that laws of physics can't vary across the universe.We don't know why laws are what they are. We don't know if there are secret "ingredients" that can affect them. We can only describe them.
One of the 3 Auxiliary principle of science states that there is consistency in the cause that operate in the natural world. This principle doesn't conflict with this observation from 2010.
Further more we do see any traction on those observations. We don't have any new studies verifying those hypothesis. That is not our current scientific consensus.
If its was true, then we would need to observe the extent of the phenomenon and the probable cause before questioning our mathematical formulations for our part of the universe.
In short the implications would stated in a pretty similar conclusion." the laws of physics may very across the universe."

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 10th, 2019, 3:51 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 6:47 pm
arjand wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 6:32 pm
I replied that a clue that evidence may be possible can be seen in spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement.
This is NOT infinity. This is the moment I told you that you did not get the concept.
You may be correct but for now the observed entanglement is called spooky because it appears to communicate despite of any distance. Such a quality is a logical possibility of infinity.
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 6:47 pm
Infinity may provide an explanation for 'instant' connectivity across the galaxy. Infinity has no beginning and thereby knows no distance.
No, Since the main thrust of your thread is a denial of uniformitarianism, you cannot make this claim stick any longer.
In a infinite Universe it would be logical that nature is a perceived state in time that can change over time. The theory for a conscious Universe would add to the validity of the idea that it is logical that nature can change over time.

Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Example: The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008 life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Early philosophers have considered the Universe to be moved by mind. It has been explored in Aristotle's De Anima.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=MSE9AA ... &q&f=false
Sculptor1 wrote:
October 9th, 2019, 6:47 pm
And this would not challenge the necessary claim that no finite being can prove infinity.
In fact due to the nature of infinity, there can be no time or place from which even an infinite being can ever finally answer the question. It is both logically and empirically impossible.
Infinity can't be counted thus that means that if infinity should considered a valid concept, it would be oneness. There cannot be two infinities. It means that as a concept, there is nothing to compare it with or for. Empirical evidence may be possible and spooky action at a distance may be a clue.
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

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 10th, 2019, 3:54 am

Felix wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 1:57 am
LOL, currently the experimental record is about 750 miles, the farther the distance a photon has to travel, the greater the chance of degradation and decoherence. This has no real relevance to the structure of the universe anyway.
It is referenced as a clue for infinity.

Entanglement is not related to photons, it was recently discovered in protons as well.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/exp ... de-protons
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 781
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

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

Post by Sculptor1 » October 10th, 2019, 5:14 am

arjand wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 3:51 am
Infinity can't be counted thus that means that if infinity should considered a valid concept, it would be oneness. There cannot be two infinities. It means that as a concept, there is nothing to compare it with or for.
And therefore no finite being my prove such a thing exists, which is what I have been saying, and you denying, since the outset.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 705
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

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

Post by Mark1955 » October 10th, 2019, 6:36 am

arjand wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 5:11 pm
Mark1955 wrote:
October 7th, 2019, 9:19 am
Implications - it will keep some cosmologists in work arguing about it.
Wouldn't that be philosophy?
Yes, and as far as I can see cosmology is mostly like theoretical physics, a lot of discussion and theorising; therefore it is a branch of philosophy. What measurements there are are based on ideas that may be false. Suppose for example the speed of light is only constant in the area of space in which we can verify it is constant and further afield it isn't. The meaning of many of the measurements is contentious, more philosophical discussion.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

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 10th, 2019, 5:05 pm

arjand: Entanglement is not related to photons, it was recently discovered in protons as well.
Well yes, it is theorized that entanglement occurs throughout the quantum world, e.g., the up and down quarks that make up the Higgs boson are entangled. But this does not imply an infinite universe, it in fact suggests an infinite number of finite universes, a.k.a, the many worlds theory.

Now, if some genius were to figure out how our universe could arise from the quantum void of space without some sort of Big Bang like event, you'd have something to hang your non-finite hat on, but until then, you're just telling fairy tales.
"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 12th, 2019, 5:52 am

Felix wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 5:05 pm
Well yes, it is theorized that entanglement occurs throughout the quantum world, e.g., the up and down quarks that make up the Higgs boson are entangled. But this does not imply an infinite universe, it in fact suggests an infinite number of finite universes, a.k.a, the many worlds theory.
Why would a presumably required concept for an infinite number of finite Universes a.k.a. the many worlds theory be more plausible then the concept for an infinite Universe?
If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.

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 12th, 2019, 5:55 am

Mark1955 wrote:
October 10th, 2019, 6:36 am
Yes, and as far as I can see cosmology is mostly like theoretical physics, a lot of discussion and theorising; therefore it is a branch of philosophy.
It appears that there is a general and established resistance to philosophy in science in which philosophy is placed on a level comparable with that of religions.

It is a generic complaint that cosmology operates more like a philosophy than a science.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
According to him, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (e.g. uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

The evidence that nature may change in time may show that such a belief is not justified.

Humans have been observing for only a tiny fraction of time. Some essential processes in evolution or nature may span thousands or even millions of years.

The question is whether it would be valid to use science as a guiding principle for human progress, i.e. to blindly follow the scientific method.

My concerns are:

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if nature changes in time, that may make science an invalid guiding principle for the future.

Philosophy or thinking could walk upfront, beyond what is known, using imagination. It could help make science more efficient. Instead of relying on past science with as logical effect dogma's (observations are considered hard truths that cannot be denied), it could test hundreds of dogma's in theory while it would remain open to continuous testing or challenging of past assumptions using methods that are continuously developed or enhanced.

If nature changes in time, how would science continue 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 12th, 2019, 12:39 pm

arjand: Why would a presumably required concept for an infinite number of finite Universes a.k.a. the many worlds theory be more plausible then the concept for an infinite Universe?
In a nutshell, all of the atoms in quantum space appear to be entangled. When quantum wave functions collapse (purportedly due to the observer effect but that's dubious), and particles appear, what happens to all of the entangled pairs of particles that do appear? (in classical macro-reality). The theory is that they collapse (materialize) in alternate mirror universes.

Sean Carroll released a new book on this subject that I haven't read: https://amzn.to/319CAfd
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Post Reply