Poll Can the universe be understood? (and described)

[Max Pain]

Unfortunately not everything fits into the poll, so I write some additions here:

In point two I mean a restriction like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle", or some random fluctuation

In point four I mean that our theories only give us good results just because they are constantly adapted (and not because they are based on something real - think of Ptolemaic system).

Happy voting and feel free to criticise my vote options!

 

[Urwumpe]

This is almost like asking if women can be understood and described.

 

[MAraujo]

I would say the answer to that question comes down to whether or not the universe is truly deterministic. The way I see it, in order to have a deterministic universe, at least two pieces of the current model of the universe must be modified.

1. It would have to be shown that quantum uncertainty is not a basic property of the universe but rather an approximation of some unseen definitive mechanics. (hard to comprehend with the current model, but not totally unreasonable)

2. Information would have to be completely conserved in the universe, even after an encounter with a singularity.

I tend to lean towards determinism, but I wouldn't say I've made up my mind about it.
I'd like to see other people who are more knowledgeable in this area add to the list.

 

[Moonwalker]

The universe certainly can be understood, but not by insignificant short-living mortals (in relation to the universe).

 

[Omhra]

sure you can understand it...

If we start with the mind set that it is not understandable... well... that is what most religions demand their believers to think. And then they can spew all sorts of notions explaining far more un-provable props.

But under slow methodical questioning, testing, experimentation and observation we can understand as far as we decide.
The limits are self imposed by resistance to see and our tardiness in asking the correct questions and developing the next measurement device.
I guess there are things that have to be "accepted" when not understood "fully" but only until we learn.


Urwumpe...

Women are universally weird, and this makes them universally the same... in that sense we understand... and describe... in a laxed, deterministic, uncertain way...


Moonwalker;

One thing bothers me tho,

...Mortals.... as opposed to what?
and who is insignificant?

 

[MAraujo]

But under slow methodical questioning, testing, experimentation and observation we can understand as far as we decide.

I think the question here is much bigger than that. It's not about what humans can understand, it's about whether or not the universe contains finite information. The implications of this are absolutely profound. If the universe is knowable, that is to say if you (or something) knew the position and velocity of every particle of matter and could account for all of the energy in the universe, they could construct a complete history and future of the universe simply by applying the physics and running the clock. Whether someone would have the ability to do this is beside the point, the question is if the information is there. It does't take a leap faith to see how this would mean that there is absolutely no free will in the universe. i.e. me writing this post was destine from the moment of the big bang.

 

[Ghostrider]

Ehm, no. Chaos theory blew a hole in that concept. That's why we can't make a mathematical model of the planet's weather and have accurate forecasts.

 

[Pquardzvaark]

Ehm, no. Chaos theory blew a hole in that concept. That's why we can't make a mathematical model of the planet's weather and have accurate forecasts.

I can't say I'm entirely knowledgable about chaos theory, but doesn't it state that a small change in the initial conditions can and will make a big difference in the final conditions? That's a little different than saying you can't make any predictions deterministically ('minor' details like the uncertainty principle aside). Can't you make a fairly accurate forecast assuming you're initial conditions are accurate and precise enough, and if the forecast time isn't too long for any fluctuations (butterfly's, I'm talking to you) to become major?

So I guess maybe it is possible to calculate what will happen, but I doubt it'll be a forecast very far into the future unless you want it to diverge from reality pretty quickly.

 

[Linguofreak]

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory (Emphasis mine):

In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Personally, I believe the universe itself is deterministic, but that it interacts with things outside of it which are not deterministic.

 

[Max Pain]

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory (Emphasis mine):




Personally, I believe the universe itself is deterministic, but that it interacts with things outside of it which are not deterministic.

Please explain yourself

 

[MAraujo]

Chaos theory merely increases the amount of information you need to know in order to precisely predict the outcome of an event. Unfortunately, it increases that amount to no less than all of the information contained within the universe as a whole. Including the particles contained within the narrator/observer. There is definitely a paradox there. Is it possible for one to know all the information in the universe while still keeping track of all the interactions happening within there own brain/computer/whatever does the thinking?

You would really need to freeze time and take a holistic snapshot of EVERYTHING including the camera itself!

 

[Pquardzvaark]

Indeed, but even if you know everything, the position and interactions of all particles. Isn't the problem that you can't though, due to the uncertainty principle, unless you've got some Heisenberg Compensator lying around?

I don't know, unless it turns out what we know is far from the full picture (which is basically certain) I doubt it'd be possible in theory to get such a snapshot of the universe, so probabilistic it is!

Just don't feel comfortable making a prediction on which current theories will get revised and how in the future, but maybe I need a really powerful computer and a snapshot of the universe and I can get back to you on that.

 

[Moonwalker]

By the way, not everything has to be understood and explainable. The vision to be able to know everything is the human inability to enjoy and to accept, which is part of our self-destruction. Humans are frightened of helplessness and finiteness, excited but frightened of the nature. They want to know everything, and even want to stop aging and to become immortal. That's why firstly religions and secondly science does exist. Both boast by running each other down, while they have a similarity: try to explain the impossible. There will always be things science, technology, and religions have no answer to. And it does not really matter. And do not glorify science too much and think that it has nothing to do with to believe in certain things...

 

[Eagle]

I would say that there probably is an extremely simple theory of everything that explains the fundamentals of the Universe.

However, the scale is going to be so small that current approximations will continue to be more than good enough with the exception of special applications.

 

[MAraujo]

Just don't feel comfortable making a prediction on which current theories will get revised and how in the future, but maybe I need a really powerful computer and a snapshot of the universe and I can get back to you on that.

Its true, this discussion is not very scientific. But we live at an odd time in the history of science. Science has always progressed by extending philosophical notions to new avenues, though those notions may change, perhaps they are worth pondering. In reading about the history of science, I'm always struck at how modern science moves so fast in so many directions that we have not been able to adapt a singular holistic philosophy that says how things are (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. all introduced new philosophies as to "how things work"). Perhaps ours will come with a theory of everything.

I am not advocating philosophical doctrine as a means doing good science by the way. Just a helpful byproduct.

 

[Omhra]

the question was if it could be understood...
And I can understand without having to predict... I understand rain, but cannot predict each droplet impact.
If the question is can you predict every small atomic/sub atomic vibration... then no...
Can you understand that they all do it.. yeah.
So I suppose in the strictest of ways I cannot know myself either.
I will now research harakiri since I have lost all drive to live... I fear I might not understand it...

 

[Eagle]

I will now research harakiri since I have lost all drive to live... I fear I might not understand it...

I would confine your research to existing literature and theoretical postulations. I do not suggest conducting any experiments.

 

[Omhra]

well, I was going to make a computer model... and then I was going to take volunteers... :rofl: life long research....

 

[Eagle]

well, I was going to make a computer model... and then I was going to take volunteers... :rofl: life long research....

Somehow I don't think 'life long' is a good description. :hmm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't forget measurement errors. We have already reached sensitivities, where measuring influences the results. We can never know the exact state of the universe. We can't freeze it and observe it from outside.

So, there will always be a small bit of surprise left.