The World's Computer
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
in Discussions
This topic is spawned from the Time Traveler thread, because I was thinking and I don't know about any one else, but after having programmed for several years, I began to wonder certain things that I'm sure I wouldn't have otherwise. At a certain point, you begin to wonder what the heck is calculating everything.
I mean has anyone really stopped to wonder what makes Newton's laws work? You have to explain rules such as these to a computer in order to simulate the real world, but where did the rules for this universe come from? Is there a gigantic computer up there that God created that figures out these things?
I mean I know it seems sort of silly to assume there is a computer, but there has to be something to dictate how an object should behave when something happens or it wouldn't happen at all. When two things bounce against each other, something makes them switch direction. We take it for granted when it happens that an apple falls from a tree, but what's deciding these things? What's making it happen? What makes things follow the rules that they do? Am I making any sense, or is this all jibberish?
I mean has anyone really stopped to wonder what makes Newton's laws work? You have to explain rules such as these to a computer in order to simulate the real world, but where did the rules for this universe come from? Is there a gigantic computer up there that God created that figures out these things?
I mean I know it seems sort of silly to assume there is a computer, but there has to be something to dictate how an object should behave when something happens or it wouldn't happen at all. When two things bounce against each other, something makes them switch direction. We take it for granted when it happens that an apple falls from a tree, but what's deciding these things? What's making it happen? What makes things follow the rules that they do? Am I making any sense, or is this all jibberish?
Comments
Its a bit of a thorn in the atheists side, the fact that the universe is indeed governed by sets of rules that just work. Science can describe how an apple falls from a tree, how fast it falls, and how this will change in certain circumstances. But it cant describe exactly why it does so - it may make mention of certain spinning bodies generating this force, but it cant tell us why this force even exists in the first place.
The whole world is like a computer game as you said, with hard coded rules that dictate everything that the games environment does. Half Life had a programmer, I've seen nothing convincing that would lead me to believe that full life doesnt.
Do you belive a divine creator made this universe, or that me evolved with no higher power?
Personaly I belive that as one post said, the 'laws' are based on human units and time perseption and therefor even if a race from another planet come to earth they might feel that some of our laws are strange or mistaken,
Do you belive a divine creator made this universe, or that me evolved with no higher power?
Personaly I belive that as one post said, the 'laws' are based on human units and time perseption and therefor even if a race from another planet come to earth they might feel that some of our laws are strange or mistaken, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution does not explain the existance of these laws. Science only claims to be able to document their effects. To say "You can either believe in Evolution or in God as far as the existance of natural law in this universe is concerned" is like saying that "in law enforcement you have two options, police or pineapples". One has something to do with the subject, the other has nothing. Guess which is which....
How we describe these laws are based around human units and perceptions, but would an apple still fall from a tree if their were no humans around? Answer = yes. Would it still fall at the same speed if humans weren't around? Answer = yes. Clearly, these laws are not dependant upon our understanding of them, much less our description.
Evolution : These laws are just based on human observations, using our ways of thinking. I mean why does everything have to have a reson behind it. Soild matter coliding with solid matter will generate energy, this energy will force the objects away from each other.
God : He created these laws as he wished them to be. We just document them as best we can
Evolution : These laws are just based on human observations, using our ways of thinking. I mean why does everything have to have a reson behind it. Soild matter coliding with solid matter will generate energy, this energy will force the objects away from each other.
God : He created these laws as he wished them to be. We just document them as best we can <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rue you just stated a rule in you evolution segment <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> The original poster was asking for an explanation for these rules in nature. Science (which evolution claims as its foundation) states that everything in the physical universe has a reason behind it.
Claiming "It just happens, enough with teh questions" is hardly scientific.
There are some theories that state that there are infinite numbers of universes with different physics (yes Virginia Doom’s hell could exist). We live in this one because we can live in it. Or God made it. Or we are just lucky. At this point and likely never, you can’t tell.
As for whole "arbitrary units and speculations" thing is off, the physical (or if want to call it scientific) universe can be explained by math, the foundation of physics. Physics at the atomic and molecular scale is chemistry. Biology is the application of chemistry by life. Sure a kilogram is based off a metal bar in France, but if you used pounds/ounces/whatever, the mass/weight of something would still be the same and be converted between different units.
If we ran into aliens, we could get scales, rulers, cups, whatever and work out the measurement systems without a word. Heck, you could the same with math problems. That's one reason why signals sent to contact aliens are often prime numbers and the like. If the aliens can bring a big enough radio to get our message, they'll know what prime numbers are. They'll be the same as ours if called something wildly different.
You heard me. All these "Laws" are meaningless.
They are nothing but the relationships we use to describe what happens in the real world based on past evidence. We observe something falling at a certain rate. We measure it carefully, and duplicate the experiment, once, twice, a thousand times until we are certain that no other factors are affecting the experiment (or we can eliminate those factors once they are uncovered).
If we observe the object falling at a certain rate at all times, we can presume that there is a force that makes the object fall at that rate.
Or consider the case in quarks. It was determined, once, that quarks could only come in packs of 3, that is until the pentaquark was discovered.
For those that arent familiar, ordinary matter, is composed of quarks. There are 8 (i think) kinds of quarks, but the ones that compose oridinary matter are the up and down quarks.
Protons are composed of two up quarks and a down quark. The up quarks have a net charge of +2/3 (making a total of 1 and 1/3 with just two up quarks) and the down quark has a net charge of -1/3, balancing the charge to +1.
The Pentaquark threw the theory out of wack, if I recall correctly, because it is composed of two up quarks, two down quarks and an "Anti-Strange" quark.
All laws are merely predictable relationships based on observation. Nothing is written in stone, gravity may not work exactly as we think, we simply havent found any evidence to dictate that it may not work as we think it to.
Time is short, I must go now. Apologies if anything was wrong I had to rush.
The infinite, multiple universes arguement has been strongly debunked. It can be used like God to explain anything. There is no reason for multiple universes to exist for starters, thats an idea creating out of no evidence what so ever. Second, if there was an infinite number of universes, "well there could be a universe where everyone the world over suffers from the mass delusion that planes hit the WTC, but it didnt actually happen, and it could just be this universe, so you cant tell me that terrorists attacked America" The multiple universes theory can be applied to explain any situation in any manner - its worthless.
Why are there no laws cronos? Why should I consider that their are no set laws? The much vaunted science had its origins in people who believed in a rational, law based God, and assumed that the universe also would contain laws and consistency. Nothing we have found since contradicts that, at least the idea that many things are governed by laws. Just because we dont know a law, or dont understand it fully, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. People didnt know that 1 electron whipped around a single proton in hydrogen, or bound up with oxygen and another hydrogen to make water, but they still drank, and water then is the same as water now.
Image Gordon in the computer generated halflife universe. He starts dropping his crowbar, and notices that every time he does, it falls to the floor. He goes further, and starts timing it. Soon he's figured out that if he drops it from 10m up, then it will hit the floor in exactly 2 seconds. Why does it do that? Gordon decides to call the force that makes this happen "Gravity" - he presumes that their is a force that makes this happen.
For him to then go on and make the leap "The force is just there, there is no law governing it" is entirely <b>incorrect</b>. The force is there because Valve programmed his universe, valve coded the weapon falling behaviour.
You're not answering questions with "Its just a force that is there". The question is "Why are these forces just there?"
The goldfish scenario is a good observation in itself, yet while it is true that if the conditions weren't true as they are now, we may or may not exist, it gives us no frame of reference as to what rules that would govern the universe that would also support life such as our own.
Also the observation that there are no laws is very much true as well. Due to observations, we have made equations that describe the way things work. However it is also true that while 100% of the time that we've dropped an apple from 1 meter from the ground, it has fallen, we must not forget that this is all observation. Likewise are our equations. It has successfully predicted behavior until now, but who knows? Maybe the next time someone drops an apple from 1 meter from the ground, it turns into a giant 400 lb. gorilla. How would we know? Our frame of reference has been the past, and it has become our best (and only) way of predicting future events.
We take all of this for granted. We've seen this type of behavior for so long, it dictates how we think about this. If we were aliens to this universe, we would not know the behavior of objects, and thus we would not be able to say with such certainty that an apple would drop from 1 meter, but we have lived in this universe all our lives. So I ask you what makes an apple fall every time it is dropped?
It isn't enough to say that the laws of the universe do this for us. Everytime you let go of an apple from 1 meter, a behavior takes over and the apple drops. Remember that "laws" are a human invention to describe behavior. We don't actually know why it has behaved in such a way, nor why or even if it will continue to behave that way. In the frame of perspective we are in, there is very little we actually know about our universe.
The goldfish idea dealt with that there are universal laws that the world we live in works by if they did not the inconsistences wouldn't workout. While right at the moment, the origins of these laws can be unknown (such as gravity). Others are better known such as electromagntism.
I'll recomend either studying philosophy or physics depending on what directions you want to appoarch this subject as both deal with laws and the like in different ways. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but a worthwhile endeavers.
Here's the proof. If infinite universes exist, then there exists a universe in which an event is happening that simultaneously destroys all universes.
/me looks out the window.....
I'm still here.
Here's the proof. If infinite universes exist, then there exists a universe in which an event is happening that simultaneously destroys all universes.
/me looks out the window.....
I'm still here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A condition of infinite universes could be that no universe exists with that event. That's not a disproof of his "multiverse theory." That's like trying to disprove the infiniteness of whole numbers by pointing out that fractions exist <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
As far as explaining God by pointing to the existence of laws, if we lived in a world where gravity worked backwards, would that prove His existence equally? What I would say is appealing about science is the predictive condition of its theories. In order for General Relativity to be important, it had to predict the curve of light around the sun during an eclipse. What would the prediction of the theory of God be?
I think the answer that some pillar of rational atheisim would give to the original poster is that, because of the immense complexities of the universe, the reason that it seems like our laws fit together so neatly is because that's the only way it could be. At the very least, any laws that produce a working universe would be, compared to the set of all possible universes, infinitely tiny. Philosophers call this idea the Best Possible World and oddly enough, it was invented by religious philosophers to solve problems in theology.
Although, on the face of it, that would seem to limit any omnipotent being, wouldn't it? Personally I find any talk of Ultimate Cause to be a distraction. No matter why you exist, you exist. Spend your time appreciating it (whether or not you believe in an afterlife).
No. The last time I checked, fractions didn't explode into mega-blackholes destroying all numbers.
Infinite universes brings about the simple truth that every possibility will be a reality somewhere.
The goldfish idea dealt with that there are universal laws that the world we live in works by if they did not the inconsistences wouldn't workout. While right at the moment, the origins of these laws can be unknown (such as gravity). Others are better known such as electromagntism.
I'll recomend either studying philosophy or physics depending on what directions you want to appoarch this subject as both deal with laws and the like in different ways. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but a worthwhile endeavers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the dismissal of the infinite universes theory I read about in a philosophical book. Its simply too robust, too all explanatory, so completely unable to be tested, unable to be falsified, and shouldnt be even contemplated by Joe "Science explains everything" Average.
Its in the realms of philosophy, untouchable by science, unable to be applied to any real world scenario, and still suffers from the basic question of where did these multiple universes come from in the first place. The ever popular "They've just always existed" is now on the back foot thanks to theories like the Big Bang, which state that this universe had a starting point. Its the wretched matrix theory all over again - fine for contemplation, but zero use in application.
And besides all that, it doesnt explain why natural law exists. Its just the get out of anything free card of philosophers everywhere.
If a better approximation comes along we discard the old and replace it with the new. Thats the way it is. A "Law" gives the feeling of rigidity, that it is indeed the truth and that it is immutable when in fact it is the opposite that is true.
If you can consistently observe a phenomenon that breaks the laws of physics then it's physics that got it wrong and not the universe.
Lets set the semantics aside for now.
Who, you take a one sided view. If the multi-verse theory is correct then you are correct as well. However, just as there is an all encompassing event that wipes out the multiverse so too is there an event that negates it. Infinite universes, infinite possiblities.
But there is a "plausible" way to describe the multiverse.
Consider that there is only one true Universe, and in that universe intelligence arose.
Like us they would develop a system whereby they might begin to create an accurate representation of their universe by finding out the relationships that govern it (E=MC^2, etc).
Consider that at some point, they would begin to simulate universes with some of their fundamental relationships altered, so instead of E=MC^2, they may create one with E=MC^4, or E=MC, or perhaps even E=M^C (That would be QUITE an interesting universe indeed <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
The point is; There are many many many many universes in which intelligent life can simply not evolve.
But for the few that can, the ones that have the fundamental laws slightly askew but not so much as to destroy their life supporting abilities, simulated intelligent life may come to be and in turn run their own simulations and wonder how their universe can have so specific a set of rules.
The point is, once you start simulating universes the number of "false" universes quickly outnumbers the "real" universes, even if those universes are extremely few in number (or, fractions anyway).
Of course it is entirely untestable but it does explain a good deal of what happens and why it happens, why certain laws are the way they are etc.
It's a possible explanation but a plausible one. It's unlikely that the why will ever be discovered in OUR generation, but perhaps in a few thousand years (barring dark ages, devastating war, etc) we may just begin to get an inkling of understanding.
Inbetween 2 whole numbers are an infinite selection or irrational numbers. Yet, the whole number series progresses to infinity. Infinity is a strange beast, and you simply cannot compare two infinities and say which is larger. They are uncomparable. Likewise, you cannot possibly justify how many more universes there are capable of supporting intelligent life vs the others which do not. If the multiverse has infinite universes, then it is comparing two infinities.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
there is no proof that the multiverse theory is wrong either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the proof. If infinite universes exist, then there exists a universe in which an event is happening that simultaneously destroys all universes.
/me looks out the window.....
I'm still here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regarding that, well you're assuming that each universe is distinctly different from another, but as far as you know, there is a multiverse with infinite universes, all of them our own.
It is very very very VERY hard to make some sort of basic statement about our universe that cannot be possibly wrong. I challenge any of you guys to make a TRUE indesputable claim about our universe.
Question: "Scientists, why are particles attracted to each other, creating the phenomena known as gravity?"
Response: "Well you see, there's several theories right now, the most likely one is the idea that the continuum will 'warp' depending on the mass of the object on it. A large object will make a big dent in it, and small object will make a negligable dent. Other objects 'fall' into these dents. Unfortunately, we cannot conclusively prove that this is correct yet. We're still working on it."
Counter-Response: "Then the law- nay, the theory of gravity is flawed."
Question: "Religion, if god is all-loving, then how come there's so much suffering in the world? How come we've never proved his existance? Why did God create other galaxies, stars, and nebulae, when, before eating the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, we would never have created the inventions to explore those bodies, since a vast majority of our technology is military in origin?"
Response: "God works in mysterious ways. Man cannot fully understand the concept of God, which is why we have faith."
Counter-Response: "Isn't faith the act of believing in something, no matter how ludicrous, false, misproven, flawed, or harmful it is?"
Counter-Counter-Response: "Don't ask dangerous questions or you'll go to hell."
What I'm saying is that Marine01 is saying that science is flawed because they don't have the answers <b>yet</b>, and that religion is right because you're never supposed to ask the questions that would prove just as flimsy as reasons why electron bonds are so strong.
If I went back in time with a rock of plutonium, say about 800 years ago, people would be mystified as to why their skin blistered, their hair fell out, their bones get brittle, and their gums bleed, and would probably assume it was dark magics at work. Now we know that it's because of gamma radiation, which slices, dices, and does lots of bad things to you. Science is ever-evolving. 800 years ago, radiation would be an unexplained, undetectable, evil force. When asked about science 200 years later, people would still point to the mysterious rock and say 'SEE WHY SCIENCE IS FLAWED - YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ROCK AND LOOK WHAT IT DOES TO US!!!'. Well, actually, we did prove that rocks aren't just deadly 'because'. It's like that for a reason.
There are no quantum physicists here. The most I could do is read off the article in Scientific American about multiverses I have in my drawer, but I haven't time for that. I might later though. Simply put, WE don't have the answers NOW, but it's stupid to say that we'll NEVER have the answers. Religion on the other hand simply answers difficult questions with lame answers such as 'because god is beyond your comprehension'. Someone who responds to a question challenging the validity of a report with 'Well, I just know it' would be laughed at. But if you're talking religion, all of a sudden it's valid?
You're a joke.
His view of the world surely must be tainted, as is our view. We think we got it figured out, but we know nothing close to the full effect of things. We can't even see the entire universe, much less predict the shape or behavior of it.
Assuming you COULD see everything, consider that it would be like an ant understanding the interworkings of the universe. We do not have the mindset to see things the way they really are. We might think we do, but the best we can do is take stabs in the dark on how to describe behavior. We have no frame of reference for anything. So not only are we searching for a needle in a haystack, but this needle looks and feels exactly like another piece of hay.
EDIT: My Scientific American seems to have dissapeared. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway, Hawkeye has a point - The SA article I was talking about talked about laws of physics being different in other multiverses. I'll try to grab it when I go home and explain more.
There are two flaws with that law's applications to this discussion.
1. The law assumes that the universe is a closed system. In other words, there are not other universes for which the energy can go to. It assumes that this one universe is the only universe.
2. The law does not discuss in any way where the initial energy of the system came from, and can therefore not discuss loss of energy to somewhere else.
EDIT: reworded for clarity
Dammit, all the laws of thermodynamics assume that there's one universe. So you can either...
a) agree that there aren't an infinite number of universes.
or
b) stop trying to cite laws that don't apply.
Anyone else see where I'm going with this?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, way to put words into other peoples' mouths. Science is flawed, of course it is. Science will never be able to explain everything precisely in relationship to each other, because we will never be able to observe everything, and because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even if we do manage to find a way around it, we have no set of initial conditions to apply our 'laws' to, so the best we can do is approximate. I think any scientist would agree that scientific laws are no more than tools that approximate in a useful way how objects behave, and may imply an underlying order. To claim that science will tell us 'the way things are' is a fallacy.
Thus, fundamental truth is relegated to the realm of religion and philosophy.
Why are we even talking about this? We've got several science vs religion threads in this forum, and i think all of them are locked.
Dammit, all the laws of thermodynamics assume that there's one universe. So you can either...
a) agree that there aren't an infinite number of universes.
or
b) stop trying to cite laws that don't apply. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the second law of Thermodynamics functions in a closed system. Obviously if energy can leave the universe, then it's not a closed system. Therefore the law would be wrong. The law isn't wrong, your <b>theory</b> is. Stop calling the laws wrong, the laws aren't changing.
The second law states that in a closed system, "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is entropy. A car won't magically refill its own gas tank - you have to refill it. Your body won't replenish its own energy until you put food energy into it. Likewise, the universe has the exact same amount of energy that it did when the big bang happened. If the universe was not a closed system, and it is, then the universe will either:
A) Become a source of infinitely increasing power until SOMETHING happens.
B) Lose energy until there's very little left. IE: Everything burns out and dissapears.
SECONDLY, the law of conservation of matter states that mass cannot be created or destroyed. If I annihilate an asteroid, I've simply turned it to vapor. It's still there. If I combine two atoms of hydrogen, I've simply created helium. It's still the same as two hydrogen atoms.
THIRD, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be converted. If I tip a glass of water over, I've simply turned potential energy into kinetic energy.
FOURTH, the FIRST law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be destroyed. Ever.
So simply put, we have three laws that state that <b>within a closed system, nothing can be created, and nothing can be removed</b>. If multiverses were capable of, as you claim, destroying each other, then you'd remove a realm of energy - Obviously existance is in a universe. Yet you're saying that it's possible to exist outside a universe? Destroying a universe would leave a lot of mass, matter, and energy with no where to go. Since a universe is a closed system, I'd like you to explain where all that energy is going to go.
You're stating that you alone are <b>right</b>, and that despite hundreds of years of science, they're all <b>wrong</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->wow, way to put words into other peoples' mouth<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Science can describe how an apple falls from a tree, how fast it falls, and how this will change in certain circumstances. But it cant describe exactly why it does so<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I can find plenty of threads where the 'God is so powerful man cannot understand him' card was played. I'm willing to bet Marine layed that down a few times.