5 ms·

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

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.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Axioms are, by definition, a choice.
    - dllthomas 4y ago
      On the one hand, I've often understood that it would be nice if we could assemble a list of "all the axioms" and prove it's consistent - at least that's how it was presented to me and roughly my interpretation of what eg. Russell and Whitehead were trying to do before being derailed by Godel proving it's impossible. On more recent reflection, it seems a little silly to want a proof in system X of the consistency of system X, even before we get to Godel, because if system X is inconsistent then it can definitely provide a proof that it is consistent by the principle of explosion.
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.

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.
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Axioms are, by definition, a choice.
  - dllthomas 4y ago
    On the one hand, I've often understood that it would be nice if we could assemble a list of "all the axioms" and prove it's consistent - at least that's how it was presented to me and roughly my interpretation of what eg. Russell and Whitehead were trying to do before being derailed by Godel proving it's impossible. On more recent reflection, it seems a little silly to want a proof in system X of the consistency of system X, even before we get to Godel, because if system X is inconsistent then it can definitely provide a proof that it is consistent by the principle of explosion.

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.