3 ms·

If we will never know, then there should be some kind of proof that the beginning of the universe is un-knowledgeable, sort of like Godel's theory of incomplete

If we will never know, then there should be some kind of proof that the beginning of the universe is un-knowledgeable, sort of like Godel's theory of incompleteness. But there is none, so the affirmation is incorrect: We don't know if we will never know.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Proof requires axioms, and the universe hints towards what they are but isn’t explicit. Per thermododynamic axioms, incompleteness is implied by the arrow of time and information atrophy. This would imply an unknowable beginning.
- c1ccccc1 4y ago
  You got the direction backwards. Increase in entropy means that the farther back you go in time, the less information the universe has in it in some sense. The initial state of the universe would therefore be very simple, having low entropy. If the state were simple enough, then in principle, we could figure it out in exact detail. The thing that thermodynamics says is unknowable is the distant future of the universe. We can predict that it will be dark and cold and empty and sparsely filled with ever-more red-shifted radiation, but it's impossible, even in principle, to know the details of exactly where each individual particle in going to end up.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Maybe we are thinking of S=k ln(0 or 1) then? Undefined or zero is not a great place to start:)
pronlover723 4y ago
There are plenty of things we will never know and that there is no way of ever knowing. Here's some. Given this 10k year old pot https://factsanddetails.com/media/2/20120207-JomonPottery.JPG https://factsanddetails.com/media/2/20120207-JomonPottery.JP... What is the name of the person that created this pot, What day did they create it? Were they in a relationship at that time? Did they have children? How many siblings did they have? There's no way to know. You can theorise time travel to find out or you can weasle into believing we'll somehow make machines in the future that can measure every facet of every atom related to the creation of the pot in such a way as to be able to trace their trajectories through time backward but both of those are grasping at straws, things that are unlikely to ever actually come to pass. The reality is we'll never know the answers to those questions. The same is true of how the universe began. The best we can do is follow our theories of how the universe works backward and see where they lead and then try to create those initial conditions and see if we get the results we expect. It may be impossible to create those initial conditions though and even so, we'd be guessing at what those initial conditions actually were as we'd be assuming that running our calculations in reverse is true describe the actual initial conditions whereas they really only describe assumed initial conditions.
- tsol 4y ago
  Human history stretches back 200,000 years according to some estimates. The agricultural revolution started about 12,000 year ago in multiple locations around the world. The first civilization was Sumer, started some 8,500 years ago. The first known writings are from Mesoamerica around 5,300 years ago. Socrates was put to death 2421 years ago. Cesar was killed 2066 years ago. Christianity began 2000 years ago, and Islam began 1412 years ago. Most of human history we will know nothing about. At most we'll find a few hints of complex cultures and technology spread out across time. These people were just as intelligent as you and I, yet their lives will forever be shrouded in a mysterious past.
Barrin92 4y ago
>then there should be some kind of proof that the beginning of the universe is un-knowledgeable Sabine literally addresses this in the piece: >"As I said earlier, you can always do this, because for any evolution law there will be some initial state that will give you the right prediction for today. The problem is that this makes a simple explanation more complicated, so these theories are not scientifically justifiable. They don’t improve the explanatory power of the standard cosmological model. Another way to put it is that all those complicated ideas for how the universe began are unnecessary to explain what we observe. It’s actually worse. Because you might think we just have to wait for better observations and then maybe we’ll see that the current cosmological model is no longer the simplest explanation. But if there was an earlier phase of the universe that was indeed more complicated than the simple initial state that we use today, we couldn’t use the scientific method to decide whether it’s correct or not. The scientific method as we know it just doesn’t cover this case. Science fails!" There are countless of competing models you can invent that explain the beginning of the universe and everything you see, provided you make them sufficiently complex. The problem is, that's not science. It's like saying: the standard model explains everything but the beginning. Let's say God caused the universe and then he went away. Technically that's an explanation, it doesn't violate physics as we know it, but it's not scientific. And given that we can't run repeated experiments on the early universe because we only got one, assuming the standard model explains everything but the early universe implies it is out of the reach of science.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Proof requires axioms, and the universe hints towards what they are but isn’t explicit. Per thermododynamic axioms, incompleteness is implied by the arrow of time and information atrophy. This would imply an unknowable beginning.

c1ccccc1 4y ago
You got the direction backwards. Increase in entropy means that the farther back you go in time, the less information the universe has in it in some sense. The initial state of the universe would therefore be very simple, having low entropy. If the state were simple enough, then in principle, we could figure it out in exact detail. The thing that thermodynamics says is unknowable is the distant future of the universe. We can predict that it will be dark and cold and empty and sparsely filled with ever-more red-shifted radiation, but it's impossible, even in principle, to know the details of exactly where each individual particle in going to end up.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Maybe we are thinking of S=k ln(0 or 1) then? Undefined or zero is not a great place to start:)

pronlover723 4y ago

There are plenty of things we will never know and that there is no way of ever knowing. Here's some. Given this 10k year old pot https://factsanddetails.com/media/2/20120207-JomonPottery.JPG https://factsanddetails.com/media/2/20120207-JomonPottery.JP... What is the name of the person that created this pot, What day did they create it? Were they in a relationship at that time? Did they have children? How many siblings did they have? There's no way to know. You can theorise time travel to find out or you can weasle into believing we'll somehow make machines in the future that can measure every facet of every atom related to the creation of the pot in such a way as to be able to trace their trajectories through time backward but both of those are grasping at straws, things that are unlikely to ever actually come to pass. The reality is we'll never know the answers to those questions. The same is true of how the universe began. The best we can do is follow our theories of how the universe works backward and see where they lead and then try to create those initial conditions and see if we get the results we expect. It may be impossible to create those initial conditions though and even so, we'd be guessing at what those initial conditions actually were as we'd be assuming that running our calculations in reverse is true describe the actual initial conditions whereas they really only describe assumed initial conditions.

tsol 4y ago
Human history stretches back 200,000 years according to some estimates. The agricultural revolution started about 12,000 year ago in multiple locations around the world. The first civilization was Sumer, started some 8,500 years ago. The first known writings are from Mesoamerica around 5,300 years ago. Socrates was put to death 2421 years ago. Cesar was killed 2066 years ago. Christianity began 2000 years ago, and Islam began 1412 years ago. Most of human history we will know nothing about. At most we'll find a few hints of complex cultures and technology spread out across time. These people were just as intelligent as you and I, yet their lives will forever be shrouded in a mysterious past.

Barrin92 4y ago

>then there should be some kind of proof that the beginning of the universe is un-knowledgeable Sabine literally addresses this in the piece: >"As I said earlier, you can always do this, because for any evolution law there will be some initial state that will give you the right prediction for today. The problem is that this makes a simple explanation more complicated, so these theories are not scientifically justifiable. They don’t improve the explanatory power of the standard cosmological model. Another way to put it is that all those complicated ideas for how the universe began are unnecessary to explain what we observe. It’s actually worse. Because you might think we just have to wait for better observations and then maybe we’ll see that the current cosmological model is no longer the simplest explanation. But if there was an earlier phase of the universe that was indeed more complicated than the simple initial state that we use today, we couldn’t use the scientific method to decide whether it’s correct or not. The scientific method as we know it just doesn’t cover this case. Science fails!" There are countless of competing models you can invent that explain the beginning of the universe and everything you see, provided you make them sufficiently complex. The problem is, that's not science. It's like saying: the standard model explains everything but the beginning. Let's say God caused the universe and then he went away. Technically that's an explanation, it doesn't violate physics as we know it, but it's not scientific. And given that we can't run repeated experiments on the early universe because we only got one, assuming the standard model explains everything but the early universe implies it is out of the reach of science.