Actually, The universe behaves as it likes, and the laws of physics DESCRIBE the behaviour and have been refined through time to be increasingly accurate. Quite possibly science will one day achieve (through increasingly powerful accelerators?) descriptions of the behaviour of those parts that are currently beyond reach.

All well and good but we have faith, trust that the universe is rationally intelligible, one has to believe that in order to even do science.

"Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained"

Indeed but again this discipline is predicated on a belief that the universe is rationally intelligible - it might not be. For example you cannot prove that if you throw a baseball across your yard, that it won't one day, stop in mid air, and fly vertically upward never to be seen again.

Science as a discipline of inquiry doesn't include innate limits that limit self description or preclude completeness, such as mathematics has run into. There is no conflict arising from the scientific investigation of the origin of science.

But if the universe is (to some degree) predictable (otherwise what else are theories for?) where does that predictability come from?

It's all well and good to speak of science as you do (and I agree with that) but the question we are confronting here is how can we explain the presence of a system that allows us to predict its future state? how can science explain the presence of all of that?

How can science explain the existence of a system that is scientifically understandable?

I'll go out on a limb here, the universe shouldn't exist, I see no reason why it does exist, nothing in science even gets close to explaining this. One can only invoke cause and effect when a universe already exists, not before.

One can't (scientifically) "explain" the presence of mass, energy, fields laws, by recourse to those things, the very things we seek to explain.

If we are honest, this is the much anticipated TOE:



It assumes nothing, why should it? what would you assume? why?

 

I think quantum mechanics and chaos theory (as examples of the genre) illustrate that science can investigate and derive predictive models for behaviours that are NOT rationally intelligible. It is certainly not necessary (and in my opinion contrary to good science) to believe in any preconceived precursor.

It is a necessary underpinning of scientific theories that they can be disproven with appropriate experimental evidence. If I threw a ball across your yard and it stopped in midair, etc, then that behaviour would be worth of investigation as a possible means to adjust or expand the accepted physical models of science. Both the laws of physics and, for example the theory of evolution, among others, stand on a statistical certainty that is open to disproof.

Perhaps your arguments are conflicted between explanations of HOW and WHY. 'WHY does the ball fall to the ground?' is explained by HOW gravity behaves. 'WHY does gravity behave as it does?' is explained by HOW relativity behaves. But 'WHY does the universe exist?' is currently in the realm of metaphysics only because we lack an understanding of the larger context within which the universe is created - of course it is possible we will never achieve the understanding of HOW* a larger context causes the universe to exist.

*edit

 

I think quantum mechanics and chaos theory (as examples of the genre) illustrate that science can investigate and derive predictive models for behaviours that are NOT rationally intelligible. It is certainly not necessary (and in my opinion contrary to good science) to believe in any preconceived precursor.

Rationally intelligible means capable of being understood, one understands something (in science) when one can predict future state. QM is widely regarded as the most successful and accurate theory in science, so I'd say that the world is rationally intelligible else QM - any theory - would be impossible.

Furthermore how can one even begin to construct a theory at all, unless one believes the world obeys laws and those laws can be expressed in mathematics?

Is mathematics rationally intelligible? Yes and therefore the world, nature must be rationally intelligible.

(I'll skip over chaos theory for now because I don't think it helps you, but we can come back to it if you want).

It is a necessary underpinning of scientific theories that they can be disproven with appropriate experimental evidence.

Yes, that's falsifiability as promoted by Popper.

If I threw a ball across your yard and it stopped in midair, etc, then that behaviour would be worth of investigation as a possible means to adjust or expand the accepted physical models of science.

But why? why would you undertake such an investigation unless you believed it could bear fruit?

Both the laws of physics and, for example the theory of evolution, among others, stand on a statistical certainty that is open to disproof.

That's not contested, I agree.

Perhaps your arguments are conflicted between explanations of HOW and WHY. 'WHY does the ball fall to the ground?' is explained by HOW gravity behaves. 'WHY does gravity behave as it does?' is explained by HOW relativity behaves. But 'WHY does the universe exist?' is currently in the realm of metaphysics only because we lack an understanding of the larger context within which the universe is created - of course it is possible we will never achieve the understanding of HOW* a larger context causes the universe to exist.

*edit

Do you agree that a scientific theory, explanation entails assumptions? assumes laws? Well unless the universe exists already we cannot expect laws to be operating especially as there's nothing for them to operate on.

So how can one explain the existence of the universe scientifically? Can we assume some new law? Yes we can but that doesn't explain the existence of that law. We can repeat this but find infinite regress which I'd argue isn't an explanation, it is the symptom of a lack of an explanation.

I also don't accept that "how" and "why" are actually very different in science. If I asked why does the earth orbit the sun you could show me Newton's Principia, yet if I asked how does the earth orbit the sun you could show me the same book.

Why anything? Because the universe is subject to laws, How anything? By being subject to laws.

 

Sure, assume nothing is just a catchy slogan, taught to me when I first learned "programming" (that is as the word was used then) on mainframes at the age of 22 from seasoned experts who'd been writing software for twenty years. It simply means keep an open mind, always be open to ideas no matter how radical or uncomfortable they might be.

The guys who used the phrase basically meant, don't assume that your code was run as you might expect, don't assume the data was as you might expect, get the facts, impersonal, objective facts before formulating opinions. A bit like Sherlock Holmes's slogan:

View attachment 363385

Above all keep an open mind, don't allow your assumptions to become an obstacle to the entry of new truths into your mind, nothing is ever as it seems.

Hi,

Sounds good. That's what I think is the right way to think about everything. Keep assumptions close at hand, but let no assumption rule over your final decisions.

About the universe vs laws...
I don't like to hear that the universe obeys Laws, it's more like the Laws obey the universe. I am sure you understand that though.
From what we know about constants involved in these Laws now, it is entirely possible that everything can change drastically without notice. It does not seem possible because our experience had never had to deal with such drastic changes, but if just a little bit of the physics was to change our bodies and everything else we know of could fly apart. That's pretty crazy. We wouldn't have to worry about Laws anymore

 

Hi,

Sounds good. That's what I think is the right way to think about everything. Keep assumptions close at hand, but let no assumption rule over your final decisions.

About the universe vs laws...
I don't like to hear that the universe obeys Laws, it's more like the Laws obey the universe. I am sure you understand that though.
From what we know about constants involved in these Laws now, it is entirely possible that everything can change drastically without notice. It does not seem possible because our experience had never had to deal with such drastic changes, but if just a little bit of the physics was to change our bodies and everything else we know of could fly apart. That's pretty crazy. We wouldn't have to worry about Laws anymore

Yes, there's a concept in geology named uniformitarianism which just means that things gradually change, small changes over long periods of time. It underpins evolutionary claims for example where complex organisms are (so it is claimed) the end result of many small accumulated changes to DNA over billions of years.

The problem with this is that it can't sensibly be applied to the existence of the universe, I mean how could laws of nature and matter and space etc appear gradually?

The evidence anyway seems to point to a Bing Bang, a sudden, dramatic discontinuous event happened 13.8 billion years ago, but why? how?

 

.... but why? how?

Still asking why and how! I explained it - just simple science - once we understand HOW the containment of the universe behaves, we will understand WHY the universe occurred.

Of course, it may be that the Big Bang is an artefact of a poor model. It's likely that our models of large cosmology are flawed as a result of our single and rather narrow viewpoint. For example, I read recently a revival of remodelling large-scale gravity to describe observed galactic behaviour without the postulate of dark matter.

The more I read about the history of cosmology (the origin of 'inflation theory' is instructive, for example) the more apparent it is to me that it is a monument built on sands of untested hypothesis. Perhaps it awaits a revolution of the same order of relativity to rewrite the underpinnings.

Uniformitarianism made a valuable but incomplete contribution to both geology and evolution bringing a refinement of prior concepts to a more accurate model, and yet as with relativity's refining of Newtonian mechanics uniformitarianism has been incorporated into more refined models, for example the theory of Punctuated Equilibria, or climate as a chaotic system, or random cosmic intercession as in the Chixulub Impact.

Can uniformitarianism be applied to the existence of universe? Yes, probably, as in geology etc, as an incomplete guiding concept - change in the universe is after all gradual generally and you are postulating that the laws of physics are uniform (but likely incomplete).

 

Still asking why and how! I explained it - just simple science - once we understand HOW the containment of the universe behaves, we will understand WHY the universe occurred.

Of course, it may be that the Big Bang is an artefact of a poor model. It's likely that our models of large cosmology are flawed as a result of our single and rather narrow viewpoint. For example, I read recently a revival of remodelling large-scale gravity to describe observed galactic behaviour without the postulate of dark matter.

The more I read about the history of cosmology (the origin of 'inflation theory' is instructive, for example) the more apparent it is to me that it is a monument built on sands of untested hypothesis. Perhaps it awaits a revolution of the same order of relativity to rewrite the underpinnings.

Uniformitarianism made a valuable but incomplete contribution to both geology and evolution bringing a refinement of prior concepts to a more accurate model, and yet as with relativity's refining of Newtonian mechanics uniformitarianism has been incorporated into more refined models, for example the theory of Punctuated Equilibria, or climate as a chaotic system, or random cosmic intercession as in the Chixulub Impact.

Can uniformitarianism be applied to the existence of universe? Yes, probably, as in geology etc, as an incomplete guiding concept - change in the universe is after all gradual generally and you are postulating that the laws of physics are uniform (but likely incomplete).

Explaining the existence of something involves describing the transition from not existing to existing, science (with its strict conservation laws) is inapplicable here, absolutely useless.

If you disagree with this statement then please show me an example, something that expresses what you're trying to say.

 

I'll add my 2 cents just for the fun of it, but in all honesty and severity. If you read all the old treatises and text that would be treatises but are not in the proper format, (cough... cough... Oliver Heaviside), they would state as it is a fact that QM is a fallacy and imagination of the woke scientist and engineers that have been indoctrinated into just believing a subject that at its core is a masquerade. If you haven't already I would suggest you read the old GE conferences right before Steinmetz died, what Steinmetz found is that the only source of work, energy, frequency, etc. is in the form of high frequency impulses, as this is what Tesla had discovered 20 some odd years earlier. Look at Tesla's patents, and you will see this is the case. Duality is what is constant, and its flows from one to the other is the formation of matter, if they are in balance no "force" would be felt. Look at the "dimensions" of a true circuit in these old books, the dielectric or displacement current is impressing a force on the conductor to shorten itself, the current is not producing the displacement, the displacement is being refracted to the conductor, thus also producing the magnetic field. But the contemplation should be focused to the action of the displacement refracting to the "conductor", at first glance you will might claim I have eaten to many paint chips but upon deep contemplation and reason of logic, the displacement is in fact coming from the infinitely same (counter space) and manifesting by excitation into space, that is why it must feel resistance, reactance, i.e. impedance, permeance and conductance. Now I will state my opinion, and you can take it however you may, QM is a mutt breed of diluted principles turned into a bad dream, and its roots are from the PURE electrical research of the philosophers of natural science. It is a distraction, to complicate a naturally simple and elegant flow of energy. I.E. IT IS INDOCTRINATION TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE.
Have a Smile!
-Simon

 

And to add, if you go down the rabbit hole of the original equations of the Maxwell and Heaviside's simplification of them, you will see that the research is incomplete, because they did not account at the time for how the displacement force, magnetic force and current becomes manifest potentially and mechanically to a somewhat physical thing. The basic principles to manipulation are in order to a degree, and at the time they were so close to figuring this out, aand that would be why GE, RCA and electrical research as a whole in regards to the old principles that were being sought, pre 1920-53, as Alexanderson was one of the last.

 

Yes, there's a concept in geology named uniformitarianism which just means that things gradually change, small changes over long periods of time. It underpins evolutionary claims for example where complex organisms are (so it is claimed) the end result of many small accumulated changes to DNA over billions of years.

The problem with this is that it can't sensibly be applied to the existence of the universe, I mean how could laws of nature and matter and space etc appear gradually?

The evidence anyway seems to point to a Bing Bang, a sudden, dramatic discontinuous event happened 13.8 billion years ago, but why? how?

Hi,

I draw attention to your second paragraph.

Maybe I did not make it clear what viewpoint I was taking. I think maybe I should define some ideas first.
1. Everything changes over time. We discover more and/or better physical laws for example.
2. We as a species, has experienced time of about 1/1400000th of the age of the universe, and directly about 1/1e22 of the size observable universe. That puts us at a disadvantage. We have experienced light from much farther away, but we have not yet experienced any other universes.
3. If there is an advanced civilization, there is absolutely NO WAY we can judge what they know or can do because our knowledge is so limited in the experience of both time and distance and possibly places we have no idea exist yet.
4. All of this seems to not even make us BABIES in the universes; it's more like we are still in the womb of the universe.

There are probably other points to be made, but more generally just forget about everything and imaging that anything is possible. That takes us out of the driver's seat completely, and that's really what we may find out some day if we can survive that long as a civilization.

So I am talking possible eons of time in the future where we know a LOT more than we do now.

Even #1 is not really that accurate, it's worse than that. We discover things and then mix up the ideas so that a lot of people get the wrong idea about something we already discovered and actually know about in detail. That means we have to also include the error of humans.

Now imaging that this is an engineering problem. You MUST come up with a way to eliminate all of the possible problems that could come up in this. How would you (or I) do it. The simple answer is we just couldn't. It may work for a while, then break down. That's exactly what has happened time and time again over the centuries, and it's happening even now. The best theories we have break down once the scale gets too small.

But again, I am thinking in terms of a much longer time scale when we will be long gone, replaced with other individuals with new questions.
This means that there is a lot of guesswork, but it is based on the pattern we've seen in the past and I believe it cannot be based on current knowledge because we cannot rely precisely enough on that.

 

Hi,

I draw attention to your second paragraph.

Maybe I did not make it clear what viewpoint I was taking. I think maybe I should define some ideas first.
1. Everything changes over time. We discover more and/or better physical laws for example.
2. We as a species, has experienced time of about 1/1400000th of the age of the universe, and directly about 1/1e22 of the size observable universe. That puts us at a disadvantage. We have experienced light from much farther away, but we have not yet experienced any other universes.
3. If there is an advanced civilization, there is absolutely NO WAY we can judge what they know or can do because our knowledge is so limited in the experience of both time and distance and possibly places we have no idea exist yet.
4. All of this seems to not even make us BABIES in the universes; it's more like we are still in the womb of the universe.

There are probably other points to be made, but more generally just forget about everything and imaging that anything is possible. That takes us out of the driver's seat completely, and that's really what we may find out some day if we can survive that long as a civilization.

So I am talking possible eons of time in the future where we know a LOT more than we do now.

Even #1 is not really that accurate, it's worse than that. We discover things and then mix up the ideas so that a lot of people get the wrong idea about something we already discovered and actually know about in detail. That means we have to also include the error of humans.

Now imaging that this is an engineering problem. You MUST come up with a way to eliminate all of the possible problems that could come up in this. How would you (or I) do it. The simple answer is we just couldn't. It may work for a while, then break down. That's exactly what has happened time and time again over the centuries, and it's happening even now. The best theories we have break down once the scale gets too small.

But again, I am thinking in terms of a much longer time scale when we will be long gone, replaced with other individuals with new questions.
This means that there is a lot of guesswork, but it is based on the pattern we've seen in the past and I believe it cannot be based on current knowledge because we cannot rely precisely enough on that.

Well all you seem to be saying is there might be an explanation but not a scientific one, if you are saying that then yes I agree.

I think God is the explanation, not laws, determinism but will, mind. No causal explanation can ever be found because the existence of causality itself cannot be explained causally.

Only uncaused, innate will can explain it, God willed it and so here it is.

This is not a scientific explanation (and we know it can't be anyway) but is a explanation.

Of all the contenders as an explanation this is the most rational, it requires no laws to preexist, it requires no infinite causal chain, it shows us that "will" is the fundamental agency and that will gave rise to the material universe and its laws.

Of course it doesn't explain the existence of will, but that might be because will just is, God just is, as when God was asked Exodus "who are you?" the answer was brutally simple "I am who I am" he said that that was actually his name, this breaks the infinite regress.

 

God is always the explanation for that which we don't understand, and surely the least rational.

Until the Enlightenment advanced science as a means of investigating the natural world, God explained everything. Why does the sun rise each day? Why do the stars move? Why are there so many different animals? Or plants?

As scientific investigation has found rational explanation for more and more facets of the universe, God has been relegated to explaining ever more distant mysteries.

 

God is always the explanation for that which we don't understand, and surely the least rational.

Well I don't think that's true actually. The scientific revolution was the result of almost exclusively Christian men and women. It was that belief system that motivated them to understand the universe. No scientists back then said God "explains" electricity, gravitation, light, heat, chemistry, bacteria etc.

Until the Enlightenment advanced science as a means of investigating the natural world, God explained everything. Why does the sun rise each day? Why do the stars move? Why are there so many different animals? Or plants?

Yes, and the movers and shakers were almost all theists, the enlightenment was a phenomenon that arose from Christian civilization, unlike say China.

Science was advanced by people who believed in a created universe not by atheists or people who claimed it came from nothing. The conservation laws alone make it obvious that science cannot account for the existence of the universe.

As scientific investigation has found rational explanation for more and more facets of the universe, God has been relegated to explaining ever more distant mysteries.

Were Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Galileo and many others "irrational"? That's a bold thing to claim, theres no evidence any of them started doubting God as they unraveled the intricacies of the universe.

If you do some research you'll find that scientists who believe in a God, see God as the explanation for why scientific explanations are possible at all.

If I leave you an encoded message to decipher, the fact you can decipher it and see possibly astonishing information in the message doesn't in any way serve to prove that I never encoded the message. If anything it indicates the existence of another mind.

Explaining the inner workings of some mechanism doesn't explain the existence of that mechanism.

Listen (if you care to) to these two guys debate this (very politely by today's standards):