10 ms·

> There’s another way in which the giant firecracker idea misleads us, because even scientists often talk about the “universe springing into existence.” Well, i

by zibby8 4y ago

> There’s another way in which the giant firecracker idea misleads us, because even scientists often talk about the “universe springing into existence.” Well, it didn’t, as far as we can tell. The opposite is true. There is no first moment of time, just as there is no smallest positive number. In physics we have equations and laws of nature that describe how one situation changes into another, but we have no equations that show how true nothingness turns into somethingness. So, since the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form. Or the equations are only approximations that hold under certain conditions?

philosophyfirst 4y ago
Yeah this is kind of a laughable position in the article. I don’t mean the conclusion, which might be right, but the method. The laws of physics as we know them are just reflections of … nothing more than what we know. The fact that we have no account of what came before the big bang is not evidence of anything except that we don’t know, especially when a very plausible theory is that what came before is totally different in kind than what came after. Being a good scientist doesn’t mean you’re a good philosopher.
- lupire 4y ago
  The point is that the theory works -- matches observed reality -- even without a "0 point", analogous to the positive Reals or Rationals.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hsn915 4y ago
    This is neither here nor there. Suppose you have a "working theory" about how birds fly, but no theory about other things might hypothetically fly. Does that afford you to claim "Nothing other than birds can fly"?
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  Didn't Gödel prove that you can't prove a theory with its' own ruleset? In physics maths always go haywire durnig phase changes, as gas laws don't apply to liquids, and such.
  - idealmedtech 4y ago
    No, he proved that under existing axiomatic systems, there are some statements which cannot be proven to be true axiomatically, even though they are true; such axiomatic systems are, in his terminology, incomplete. A subtle but important difference.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      One thing I've always wondered is if there's any _interesting_ statements that can't be proved or if they're all kind of self-referential nonsense statements.
      - idealmedtech 4y ago
        There's whole _fields_ of inquiry that either take or leave the axiom of choice; so yes, absolutely.
        kadoban 4y ago
        Is that the kind of statement Godel was talking about? Seems to me to be somehow different. It's not really true or false, it's an arbitrary choice, so it's just something you either decide is part of your system or not, not a true statement that's unprovable. Maybe I'm missing something?
        idealmedtech 4y ago
        Axiom of choice isn't really relevant to Godel's work, except for the fact that it's part of axiomatic systems. But in response to your comment, I was pointing out that there's lots of interesting math that comes from the results of his work; namely under different axiomatic systems you can find different and interesting results.
- oraphalous 4y ago
  If there is such a thing as bad or good philosophy...
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulrouget 4y ago
    > Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…
    - anonymousiam 4y ago
      "We don't know that." Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time > it's difficult for most people to grasp. "Oh come on…" Q.E.D.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - paulrouget 4y ago
        > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before". As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time! > Q.E.D. I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility. If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.
benreesman 4y ago
As just one more computer programmer mouthing off about a Nobel Laureate's assertions in the grand tradition of HN: I find it far more useful to think about boundary cases like "first time" or "farthest distance" in terms of observable causal structure: what can currently know about the cause and effect relationship between things, what could we possibly know, and what could we never know? Outside of that it seems to be not only a slippery but also a steep slope into sloppy analogy to human experience.
Sakos 4y ago
> Or the equations are only approximations that hold under certain conditions? Well, clearly that's possible. What is it with people on HN coming up with "gotchas" regarding topics they know nothing about? He didn't say there could not ever be equations that show "nothingness turning into somethingness", all he says is that we have no way of showing it with what we know, what we can deduce, and much less what we can prove. If there are equations that satisfy the constraints, we're not aware of them yet (the same way we don't know yet how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics). According to our current understanding, "the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form". If you want to suggest random ideas, maybe you want to back them up with more than just "but what if they do exist?"
Natsu 4y ago
I know the models treat time as a real number that we can do funky things with (see also Banach-Tarski), but I really wonder if time isn't quantized like so much else in QM.

by zibby8 4y ago

philosophyfirst 4y ago

Yeah this is kind of a laughable position in the article. I don’t mean the conclusion, which might be right, but the method. The laws of physics as we know them are just reflections of … nothing more than what we know. The fact that we have no account of what came before the big bang is not evidence of anything except that we don’t know, especially when a very plausible theory is that what came before is totally different in kind than what came after. Being a good scientist doesn’t mean you’re a good philosopher.

lupire 4y ago
The point is that the theory works -- matches observed reality -- even without a "0 point", analogous to the positive Reals or Rationals.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hsn915 4y ago
  This is neither here nor there. Suppose you have a "working theory" about how birds fly, but no theory about other things might hypothetically fly. Does that afford you to claim "Nothing other than birds can fly"?
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Didn't Gödel prove that you can't prove a theory with its' own ruleset? In physics maths always go haywire durnig phase changes, as gas laws don't apply to liquids, and such.
- idealmedtech 4y ago
  No, he proved that under existing axiomatic systems, there are some statements which cannot be proven to be true axiomatically, even though they are true; such axiomatic systems are, in his terminology, incomplete. A subtle but important difference.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    One thing I've always wondered is if there's any _interesting_ statements that can't be proved or if they're all kind of self-referential nonsense statements.
    - idealmedtech 4y ago
      There's whole _fields_ of inquiry that either take or leave the axiom of choice; so yes, absolutely.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        Is that the kind of statement Godel was talking about? Seems to me to be somehow different. It's not really true or false, it's an arbitrary choice, so it's just something you either decide is part of your system or not, not a true statement that's unprovable. Maybe I'm missing something?
        idealmedtech 4y ago
        Axiom of choice isn't really relevant to Godel's work, except for the fact that it's part of axiomatic systems. But in response to your comment, I was pointing out that there's lots of interesting math that comes from the results of his work; namely under different axiomatic systems you can find different and interesting results.
oraphalous 4y ago
If there is such a thing as bad or good philosophy...
anonymousiam 4y ago
It's not laughable at all. Before the existence of our universe, there was no time. Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." It's not valid to extrapolate backward to a time before our universe existed. This is a concept that I've tried to explain to others for years, but it's difficult for most people to grasp.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paulrouget 4y ago
  > Before the existence of our universe, there was no time We don't know that. > Time was created along with the space, matter, and energy when the thing "sprang into existence." These are just speculations. Some theories indeed mention that, but they are not part of our standard models. For now, we just don't know. > it's difficult for most people to grasp. Oh come on…
  - anonymousiam 4y ago
    "We don't know that." Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time > it's difficult for most people to grasp. "Oh come on…" Q.E.D.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time I don’t see anything in that article mentioning that time did not exist before the universe existed. Did I miss it?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - paulrouget 4y ago
      > Yes we do: https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time https://www.britannica.com/science/space-time We have an accepted standard model. 2 in fact. QM and Lambda CDM say very little about how things were working very close the t=0, and say absolutely nothing about how the conditions were a t=0 or "before". As I said in my comment, people suggest ideas of how things could be. But nothing tangible, nothing ever included in ΛCDM, nothing predicted by QM… we are missing data, solid math, and solid physic to postulate anything about t<=0. I mean … we don't even know how gravity works in these conditions. How could we even say anything about time! > Q.E.D. I would classify your previous comment as pseudo science, and saying "it's difficult for most people to grasp" as lack of humility. If you do understand how space and time were structured "before the existence of our universe", you should go claim a Nobel price.

benreesman 4y ago

As just one more computer programmer mouthing off about a Nobel Laureate's assertions in the grand tradition of HN: I find it far more useful to think about boundary cases like "first time" or "farthest distance" in terms of observable causal structure: what can currently know about the cause and effect relationship between things, what could we possibly know, and what could we never know? Outside of that it seems to be not only a slippery but also a steep slope into sloppy analogy to human experience.

Sakos 4y ago

> Or the equations are only approximations that hold under certain conditions? Well, clearly that's possible. What is it with people on HN coming up with "gotchas" regarding topics they know nothing about? He didn't say there could not ever be equations that show "nothingness turning into somethingness", all he says is that we have no way of showing it with what we know, what we can deduce, and much less what we can prove. If there are equations that satisfy the constraints, we're not aware of them yet (the same way we don't know yet how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics). According to our current understanding, "the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form". If you want to suggest random ideas, maybe you want to back them up with more than just "but what if they do exist?"

Natsu 4y ago

I know the models treat time as a real number that we can do funky things with (see also Banach-Tarski), but I really wonder if time isn't quantized like so much else in QM.