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
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

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?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

I believe the Cosmology Forum is that way.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

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 6212 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.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

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

Post by Felix »

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
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

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.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
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 »

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: 1243
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 »

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: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

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
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

LuckyR wrote: October 5th, 2019, 8:27 pmChange 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.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

arjand wrote: October 6th, 2019, 4:48 am
LuckyR wrote: October 5th, 2019, 8:27 pmChange 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
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

LuckyR wrote: October 6th, 2019, 5:26 amYou 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?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

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

Post by RJG »

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 »

Is there one constant in physics which would be that there is constant change in nature?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

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

Post by Felix »

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
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by psyreporter »

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.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021