6 ms·

I am more and more on board with the Lee Smolin "singular universe" concept. To me it's very analogous to the Darwinian revolution in biology. Physicists are st

by themgt 10y ago

I am more and more on board with the Lee Smolin "singular universe" concept. To me it's very analogous to the Darwinian revolution in biology. Physicists are still pre-Darwin, unable to understand why the universe looks so "un-natural". It's the watchmaker analogy for physical laws and constants, and the answer is the laws look so well-tuned because the laws and particles themselves "evolved" and tuned themselves into the stable universe we see.

theprotocol 10y ago
Are laws not simply constantly applicable rules, existing outside of spacetime? How would such a thing evolve?
- brigweofnewub 10y ago
  in The Singular Universe Smolin argues that we should drop the assumption of unchanging laws outside of time and instead assume that Time is primary and the laws evolve as a function of the state of the Universe
  - brigweofnewub 10y ago
    (i.e. that the laws of physics are inside the universe)
    - theprotocol 10y ago
      Interesting, I'll have to read more about this. Thanks for the response.
MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
Nothing can really be ruled out at this point, and there are all kinds of theories. Most seem to agree at this point that the Level I Multiverse is a thing because it's existence directly flows from the concept of an infinite inflationary universe. That's a theory which would lead to us existing here because we're in a universe where the physical laws worked out in such a way that we could be here. I've never heard of the concept that the laws "evolved" to what they are now, I'll certainly read up on it.
justinpombrio 10y ago
Evolution depends on a means of variation (in biology, random mutation), and on a measure of fitness (in biology, number of children). What would the means of variation and the measure of fitness be for laws of physics?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think more accurately, a measure of fitness includes a fitness filter (in biology, death). This raises another question - what would be the fitness filter for the universe?
  - adrianN 10y ago
    Entities capable of asking this question?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Does lack of such entities kill a universe? If not, then we're just reducing the problem to anthropic principle here.
      - ivoras 10y ago
        It's very likely that there's no higher purpose in any universe's existence - a/the universe could just be a set of random "rules and laws" which happen to not die out as soon as they are randomly created. Of course verifying this probably requires that we inspect most of our universe directly...
  - tinco 10y ago
    Instability. Just like in biology, death is not a true optimization, it is greedy for local maximums. How many bacteria have evolved specifically to thrive on you, even though within a couple decades surely you'll be no more, leading them to extinction? So would universes come in existance with varying degrees of stability. No one has to say 'this is a stable universe'. We can say 'this universe has been stable for quite a long while'. Long enough to spawn us and the very interesting universe around us. Just like in biology, merely the fact that we could be here, is the reason we're here. Of course, that's assuming that for some reason big bangs with varying values for universal constants are a constant occurrence. Unfortunately, this is not likely to be something we're ever going to be able to measure/observe. Though there are/have been (theoretical) experiments to see if universal constants really are constant. If they're not, that would be a nice indicator that the universe really is unstable enough to create stability.
bmh_ca 10y ago
Survival of the fittest universe.
ansible 10y ago
I'm more inclined to go with the anthropic principle, where we're observing this universe with these particular physical constants because the other universes (with slightly different constants) are a largely undifferentiated soup of basic particles.
- cauterized 10y ago
  Why can't it be both?
  - ansible 10y ago
    Aside from the high temperature of the early universe, we haven't seen evidence that the physical laws are changing over time, much less 'adapting' in some way. What's the pressure for them to change? What's the reward for them to stay stable now?
    - ivoras 10y ago
      On the other hand, we haven't directly observed the universe for a long enough time (billions of years) to say it's not changing, so we simply don't know. We don't even know if the universe is homogeneous. For example, all we know about distant stars is complete conjecture and approximation based on testing various ideas to see which one fits. We simply don't know if "gravity" is exactly the same for all of them. Small variations of G would still light them up.
      - ansible 10y ago
        We've been looking back in time billions of years, because we look at objects billions of light-years away. If there's anything amiss about how gravity or whatever isn't working like it used to, that's news to me. I haven't heard of even a hint or something like that.
    - cauterized 10y ago
      I was more asking why the two hypotheses have to be mutually exclusive.
api 10y ago
Evolved how? According to what selection criterion? There has to be an environment or you just get a random walk across state space. Evolution is a learning process that transfers information from the environment into the evolving system as such information pertains to an implied goal function. Selection need not be wholly external. It can be emergent from within the system, as it is with life viewed collectively as it manifests ecology and coevolution. But in the end there is still the basic criterion of mortality and reproductive fitness that serves as a top level goal function to orient the entire system. There is the environment and the implied goal of genetic survival. What might the top level goal function be for an evolving universe? And where would it come from? How can "all that there is" possess an environment? Of course in an eternal universe model with changing physical laws you could have a random walk across state space, but this amounts to saying the digits of pi contain Shakespeare. They do but it doesn't tell us any more than infinite multiverse theories. In fact we might call this an infinite multiverse theory linearized across time instead of parallelized across dimensions.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > But in the end there is still the basic criterion of mortality and reproductive fitness that serves as a top level goal function to orient the entire system. Reproductive fitness is necessary to apply the concept of evolution, but mortality isn't.
  - api 10y ago
    That is true if you have infinite capacity, such as a hypothetical biology in an infinite environment with infinite resources. Is he proposing infinite universes? In that case I'm not sure I see the difference between this and multiverse theories.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      No, it's always true. If you don't have infinite capacity, then you will have mortality, but that's a separate issue.
blueprint 10y ago
Since you seem like a sensible person, I'll tell you what I have to deliver. This world exists according to a singular, fundamental principle which is that a thing that comes into existence once makes results on the basis of what is inside of itself from the past, and makes itself exist continuously by repeating its activities endlessly. A thing's very activities become the cause through which it makes itself come into being in the future. So, seeing the world from this principle, we can find two or three laws: The law of cause and effect, and the law of existing by changing through activities (repetition). Rather than coming up with theory and finding evidence, we can take any sample from the entire world and verify this theory as their method of operation. (If you're wondering about the question of infinitely regressing this statement to the origin of the world, I can say that the same explanation applies. The world itself also repeats (ends and begins again) periodically and also displays the entire process of evolution according to the law of cause and effect.) When people really understand this principle and see things in the world on the principle, they come to realize the fundamental problem in physics is gravity. People don't really understand what general relativity means. It's sort of like how most people don't know that Schrödinger was joking when he talked about not knowing if the cat would be alive or dead. That's why physics has gone on a massive detour over the last 100 years. Unless physicists solve the problem of gravity, humanity won't be able to recognize the cause of and survive through the collapse of the Earth's ecosystem. Things are more serious than people realize - even after all these years. It sounds fantastical to people who haven't confirmed, but what I point out here is undeniable after confirmation of facts. So, from one perspective, it's as if physicists don't have the willpower or courage to admit the reality of the situation today, which is what fundamentally prevents them from pursuing the way to confirm about gravity - it would result in them confronting today's reality. Realistically, it's a hard burden for anyone to bear. That's one of the reasons why a person who says what I say here is rarely welcomed.
- blueprint 10y ago
  Downvotes prove my point. ;) People who told the truth to awaken humanity were always treated terribly. Anyone who is able to claim differently has never studied the most fundamental and important aspects of human history and can be confirmed to be a person who isn't actually able to understand the very truth.

by themgt 10y ago

theprotocol 10y ago

Are laws not simply constantly applicable rules, existing outside of spacetime? How would such a thing evolve?

brigweofnewub 10y ago
in The Singular Universe Smolin argues that we should drop the assumption of unchanging laws outside of time and instead assume that Time is primary and the laws evolve as a function of the state of the Universe
- brigweofnewub 10y ago
  (i.e. that the laws of physics are inside the universe)
  - theprotocol 10y ago
    Interesting, I'll have to read more about this. Thanks for the response.

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago

Nothing can really be ruled out at this point, and there are all kinds of theories. Most seem to agree at this point that the Level I Multiverse is a thing because it's existence directly flows from the concept of an infinite inflationary universe. That's a theory which would lead to us existing here because we're in a universe where the physical laws worked out in such a way that we could be here. I've never heard of the concept that the laws "evolved" to what they are now, I'll certainly read up on it.

justinpombrio 10y ago

Evolution depends on a means of variation (in biology, random mutation), and on a measure of fitness (in biology, number of children). What would the means of variation and the measure of fitness be for laws of physics?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think more accurately, a measure of fitness includes a fitness filter (in biology, death). This raises another question - what would be the fitness filter for the universe?
- adrianN 10y ago
  Entities capable of asking this question?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Does lack of such entities kill a universe? If not, then we're just reducing the problem to anthropic principle here.
    - ivoras 10y ago
      It's very likely that there's no higher purpose in any universe's existence - a/the universe could just be a set of random "rules and laws" which happen to not die out as soon as they are randomly created. Of course verifying this probably requires that we inspect most of our universe directly...
- tinco 10y ago
  Instability. Just like in biology, death is not a true optimization, it is greedy for local maximums. How many bacteria have evolved specifically to thrive on you, even though within a couple decades surely you'll be no more, leading them to extinction? So would universes come in existance with varying degrees of stability. No one has to say 'this is a stable universe'. We can say 'this universe has been stable for quite a long while'. Long enough to spawn us and the very interesting universe around us. Just like in biology, merely the fact that we could be here, is the reason we're here. Of course, that's assuming that for some reason big bangs with varying values for universal constants are a constant occurrence. Unfortunately, this is not likely to be something we're ever going to be able to measure/observe. Though there are/have been (theoretical) experiments to see if universal constants really are constant. If they're not, that would be a nice indicator that the universe really is unstable enough to create stability.

bmh_ca 10y ago

Survival of the fittest universe.

ansible 10y ago

I'm more inclined to go with the anthropic principle, where we're observing this universe with these particular physical constants because the other universes (with slightly different constants) are a largely undifferentiated soup of basic particles.

cauterized 10y ago
Why can't it be both?
- ansible 10y ago
  Aside from the high temperature of the early universe, we haven't seen evidence that the physical laws are changing over time, much less 'adapting' in some way. What's the pressure for them to change? What's the reward for them to stay stable now?
  - ivoras 10y ago
    On the other hand, we haven't directly observed the universe for a long enough time (billions of years) to say it's not changing, so we simply don't know. We don't even know if the universe is homogeneous. For example, all we know about distant stars is complete conjecture and approximation based on testing various ideas to see which one fits. We simply don't know if "gravity" is exactly the same for all of them. Small variations of G would still light them up.
    - ansible 10y ago
      We've been looking back in time billions of years, because we look at objects billions of light-years away. If there's anything amiss about how gravity or whatever isn't working like it used to, that's news to me. I haven't heard of even a hint or something like that.
  - cauterized 10y ago
    I was more asking why the two hypotheses have to be mutually exclusive.

api 10y ago

Evolved how? According to what selection criterion? There has to be an environment or you just get a random walk across state space. Evolution is a learning process that transfers information from the environment into the evolving system as such information pertains to an implied goal function. Selection need not be wholly external. It can be emergent from within the system, as it is with life viewed collectively as it manifests ecology and coevolution. But in the end there is still the basic criterion of mortality and reproductive fitness that serves as a top level goal function to orient the entire system. There is the environment and the implied goal of genetic survival. What might the top level goal function be for an evolving universe? And where would it come from? How can "all that there is" possess an environment? Of course in an eternal universe model with changing physical laws you could have a random walk across state space, but this amounts to saying the digits of pi contain Shakespeare. They do but it doesn't tell us any more than infinite multiverse theories. In fact we might call this an infinite multiverse theory linearized across time instead of parallelized across dimensions.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> But in the end there is still the basic criterion of mortality and reproductive fitness that serves as a top level goal function to orient the entire system. Reproductive fitness is necessary to apply the concept of evolution, but mortality isn't.
- api 10y ago
  That is true if you have infinite capacity, such as a hypothetical biology in an infinite environment with infinite resources. Is he proposing infinite universes? In that case I'm not sure I see the difference between this and multiverse theories.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    No, it's always true. If you don't have infinite capacity, then you will have mortality, but that's a separate issue.

blueprint 10y ago

Since you seem like a sensible person, I'll tell you what I have to deliver. This world exists according to a singular, fundamental principle which is that a thing that comes into existence once makes results on the basis of what is inside of itself from the past, and makes itself exist continuously by repeating its activities endlessly. A thing's very activities become the cause through which it makes itself come into being in the future. So, seeing the world from this principle, we can find two or three laws: The law of cause and effect, and the law of existing by changing through activities (repetition). Rather than coming up with theory and finding evidence, we can take any sample from the entire world and verify this theory as their method of operation. (If you're wondering about the question of infinitely regressing this statement to the origin of the world, I can say that the same explanation applies. The world itself also repeats (ends and begins again) periodically and also displays the entire process of evolution according to the law of cause and effect.) When people really understand this principle and see things in the world on the principle, they come to realize the fundamental problem in physics is gravity. People don't really understand what general relativity means. It's sort of like how most people don't know that Schrödinger was joking when he talked about not knowing if the cat would be alive or dead. That's why physics has gone on a massive detour over the last 100 years. Unless physicists solve the problem of gravity, humanity won't be able to recognize the cause of and survive through the collapse of the Earth's ecosystem. Things are more serious than people realize - even after all these years. It sounds fantastical to people who haven't confirmed, but what I point out here is undeniable after confirmation of facts. So, from one perspective, it's as if physicists don't have the willpower or courage to admit the reality of the situation today, which is what fundamentally prevents them from pursuing the way to confirm about gravity - it would result in them confronting today's reality. Realistically, it's a hard burden for anyone to bear. That's one of the reasons why a person who says what I say here is rarely welcomed.

blueprint 10y ago
Downvotes prove my point. ;) People who told the truth to awaken humanity were always treated terribly. Anyone who is able to claim differently has never studied the most fundamental and important aspects of human history and can be confirmed to be a person who isn't actually able to understand the very truth.