The Laws of the Universe

[Pure Argent]

Right now I'm involved in a discussion on the Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board (FRDB (http://www.freeratio.org/)) under the username Leon Belmont. The thread, if anyone is interested in actually reading it, is in the Evolution/Creation subforum, and is titled "How Lucky Are We To Have Evolved?"
I'm currently arguing against two other posters, under the names buckshot23 and ughaibu. buckshot23 is fairly easy to handle, as he's a standard YEC, but ughaibu is giving me some trouble.
I started arguing with ughaibu when he made the following statement:

I see no reason to suppose that the universe follows laws.

So I brought up the laws of physics - E = mc2, the gravitational force, etc. To which he responded:

You haven't given me any reason to suppose that there are laws of the universe, and all you've mentioned, until now, are laws of physics.

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by ughaibu
You haven't given me any reason to suppose that there are laws of the universe, and all you've mentioned, until now, are laws of physics.

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?

I don't see anything wrong with asking him just that. Sometimes by asking someone what are they talking about, they tend to get stuck as they realize they're doing nothing but exercising mere sophistry.

[Malerin]

He may be referncing Hume's claim that what we typically call laws of nature are constant conjunctions of cause and effect.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/22206/laws-natural-or-scientific.html

[Pure Argent]

He may be referncing Hume's claim that what we typically call laws of nature are constant conjunctions of cause and effect.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/22206/laws-natural-or-scientific.html

So Hume argues that there is no link between cause and effect? That they are simply constantly-repeating chance relations of two occurrences?

[Hokulele]

Has anyone here run across this? What are the laws of the universe that he's talking about if not the laws of physics? Is this some little-known belief that I've somehow not run across before?


Ask him where in the universe do the laws of physics not apply.

[Pure Argent]

This is rapidly surpassing my ability to keep up. Can someone here read this post (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6220837#post6220837) and give me some help? Or, better yet, actually join in the debate on the site?

[Pure Argent]

Okay, you know what? I give up. Why? This post (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6220862#post6220862).

[Hokulele]

This is rapidly surpassing my ability to keep up. Can someone here read this post (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6220837#post6220837) and give me some help? Or, better yet, actually join in the debate on the site?


I took a quick peek at that thread, and I have no clue as to what he/she is going on about. It looked like metaphysical word salad to me. Sorry. :(

[Pure Argent]

I took a quick peek at that thread, and I have no clue as to what he/she is going on about. It looked like metaphysical word salad to me. Sorry. :(

That's pretty much what it is. Now that I'm not actually in the process of responding to the posts and I can take a step back, I can see how horrible at logic this guy really is. He's currently asking me why it would be improbable that an entirely random universe would consistently behave as though it followed rules.

[Dancing David]

Okay, you know what? I give up. Why? This post (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6220862#post6220862).

Well there are no reasons, the universe behaves as it does, it behaves consistently acroos the visible portion of space and time.

We do not need reasons, it just does. (For example the fine structure constant is consistent across the universe to the times we can measure it.)

Science is about approximate models, there are no 'laws of the universe' there are predictions we make about the behavior of the universe based upon the models. It could be the electro-magnetic force or it could be angels, the universe behaves consistently.

[Dancing David]

That's pretty much what it is. Now that I'm not actually in the process of responding to the posts and I can take a step back, I can see how horrible at logic this guy really is. He's currently asking me why it would be improbable that an entirely random universe would consistently behave as though it followed rules.

Well that is the anthropic principle at work again, a random universe does not mean that all the parts of the universe are random, the values of the constants of the universe are likely to be related to each other, there may be variability in what they became, but that does not mean that all values are possible. This is a common strategy in the anthropic principle.

In Penrose's argument we gives some fantastic number for the possible configurations of the random universe, but since we do not know why the constants of the universe are what they are it is ridiculous speculation.

The universe is not random is any sense of the word that means 'anything imaginable', electrons are randomly found within the probability zones of QM, but that probability is rather constrained. Yes there is a low probability that an electron from the Andromeda galaxy will exchange places with one in me right now. But that is a very very very low probability. The electrons in my body are more likely to appear in certain places than others.

Random means equally likely within a distribution, it does not mean that all distributions are equal.

[Dancing David]

Yeah this gut is making waffles

Which law of physics dictated the content of this post? If you can not state the relevant law, then you have an example, the content this post is both in the universe and laws of physics do not apply.

He does not know the difference between 'predictions made by science' and 'philosophical determinism'. The facts are that your body, the computer network and his body follow consistent patterns of behavior. But that does not mean that a 'clockmaker' explanation for each and every action is possible.

The universe appears to be causal to some extent, that does not mean it is determined and preordained.

[Pure Argent]

Yeah this gut is making waffles

Yup.

[Pure Argent]

Anybody got any idea what he's on about with the "simultaneity" bit now?

[Cynic]

Anybody got any idea what he's on about with the "simultaneity" bit now?

It's just dualism of the gaps. I think he's trying to suggest that causality is an illusion, and that things only appear to be causally connected because those kind of events always occur together. I'm not sure how that leads to anything, but I think that's the premise. Hard to say.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by ughaibu
I see no reason to suppose that the universe follows laws.

Argument from stupidity?

[Brian-M]

Just a random stab-in-the-dark without actually reading the discussion....

Could he mean that the behavior of the universe is just an emergent property of its fundamental attributes, and what we know as the "laws of physics" are just a description of this behavior, and not the foundation of this behavior?

In which case the universe could be thought of as just happening to act in a manner consistent with the laws-of-physics we've made-up to describe it, but not necessarily obliged to follow them.

(Of course, all this is just splitting hairs over exactly what is meant by "the laws of physics".)

[Bikewer]

One of the claims made by ID enthusiasts is that there is no particular reason the "constants" of the universe should have fallen out the way they did. Gravity, mass, attraction...
They point out that even minor variations in these constants might have resulted in a universe in which life was not possible.
So, (borrowing from Anthropic Principals) they maintain that the universe must have been designed with these particular constants.

Of course, we don't really have any evidence (to my knowledge) that these constants can be different...
Or that this is the only universe. Since numbers of cosmologists maintain a likelyhood of multiple or even infinite numbers of universes, then all conceivable variations of constants may have occurred...Fortunate for us that this particular universe is amenable to the formation of stars, complex planets, and life.

[Pure Argent]

Just a random stab-in-the-dark without actually reading the discussion....

Could he mean that the behavior of the universe is just an emergent property of its fundamental attributes, and what we know as the "laws of physics" are just a description of this behavior, and not the foundation of this behavior?

In which case the universe could be thought of as just happening to act in a manner consistent with the laws-of-physics we've made-up to describe it, but not necessarily obliged to follow them.

(Of course, all this is just splitting hairs over exactly what is meant by "the laws of physics".)

I doubt that this is what he actually means, as I've tried to explain this to him several times already. Each time he completely fails to grasp my meaning.

One of the claims made by ID enthusiasts is that there is no particular reason the "constants" of the universe should have fallen out the way they did. Gravity, mass, attraction...
They point out that even minor variations in these constants might have resulted in a universe in which life was not possible.
So, (borrowing from Anthropic Principals) they maintain that the universe must have been designed with these particular constants.

Of course, we don't really have any evidence (to my knowledge) that these constants can be different...
Or that this is the only universe. Since numbers of cosmologists maintain a likelyhood of multiple or even infinite numbers of universes, then all conceivable variations of constants may have occurred...Fortunate for us that this particular universe is amenable to the formation of stars, complex planets, and life.

Another item on the list of things that he does not understand.

[TimCallahan]

Perhaps the whole thing is a matter of semantics. Perhaps if you rephrased the term "laws of the universe" as "properties of the universe" all the emotinal baggage and connotaions called up by the word "laws" could be sidesteped.

[Robin]

So Hume argues that there is no link between cause and effect? That they are simply constantly-repeating chance relations of two occurrences?
No, he argues that there is no deductive basis for the concept of cause and effect, also that we don't observe cause and effect, we simply observe succession of events and infer cause and effect.

[Pure Argent]

No, he argues that there is no deductive basis for the concept of cause and effect, also that we don't observe cause and effect, we simply observe succession of events and infer cause and effect.

Okay, thanks.

[Pure Argent]

Perhaps the whole thing is a matter of semantics. Perhaps if you rephrased the term "laws of the universe" as "properties of the universe" all the emotinal baggage and connotaions called up by the word "laws" could be sidesteped.

Hmm. I may have to try that.

[maatorc]

1 - Energy, as the power to do and work, IS the Universe.
2 - The Universal energy spectrum of vibrations IS the Universe at work.
3 - The spectrum is unlimited.
4 - The entire spectrum is universally ubiquitous.
5 - The primary particle arising from the vibrations of the spectrum is the Electron.
6 - As a universal law, electrons are of two types, those vibrating evenly, and those vibrating unevenly.
7 - Electrons vibrating evenly attract and combine with those vibrating unevenly, and repel those vibrating evenly.
8 - As a universal law, vibration ranges of manifestation within the spectrum operate within doubling and halving groups of octaves of perception from touch through electromagnetic, visible light, to gamma rays and above.
9 - Universal Mind operating as universal energy is universally ubiquitous.

[Beerina]

I view the "constants of the universe" as being "set to yield life" being far more likely, which isn't saying much, to indicate we're a simulated/toy world of advanced minds than we are to be a construct of some "god" creature.

After all, if that premise is true, then that we're some experiment/playground of real creatures not much different from us (if at all) is exceedingly more parsimonious than a mystical "god" existing.

[Dancing David]

1 - Energy, as the power to do and work, IS the Universe.
2 - The Universal energy spectrum of vibrations IS the Universe at work.
3 - The spectrum is unlimited.

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?

You also have the order of the speheres all messed up.

4 - The entire spectrum is universally ubiquitous.
5 - The primary particle arising from the vibrations of the spectrum is the Electron.

Wrong 28,29,16,17

6 - As a universal law, electrons are of two types, those vibrating evenly, and those vibrating unevenly.
7 - Electrons vibrating evenly attract and combine with those vibrating unevenly, and repel those vibrating evenly.

Oh my, you don't get it do you, a down quark is not an up quark plus an Electron.
There are 6x2x2+4or5=16 or 17 base particles.

Your teachers have failed you again.

8 - As a universal law, vibration ranges of manifestation within the spectrum operate within doubling and halving groups of octaves of perception from touch through electromagnetic, visible light, to gamma rays and above.

No there are the resonances of the particles, but EM forces are arranged in the spectrum.

Um it has been a while since i read Strange Beauty, but you are wrong about the doubling.


9 - Universal Mind operating as universal energy is universally ubiquitous.


Nice word salad Maatorc, not only did your teachers fail you, you fail you.

If you want to combine physics and mysticism, you need the four fundamentdal forces at least
strong, weak, e-m, gravity
fermions: leptons (6x2), quarks(6x2)
bosons: four gauge (photons, W,Z and gluons) and the potential Higgs

so we have 6x2,6x2,4/5
so if we collapse the antipartcles, we have 6+6+4 or 5= 16 or 17.

These are of course just the base resonances, exclduing the Strange Beauty of Gell-Mann and others.

I do not fault you but again, you need better teachers, this material, including the mysteries is all available, and they still got it wrong.

[maatorc]

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?
(Did you mean 'disaster'?)......

If you want to explain the Universe by quantum physics you need to understand it is but a 'current' perception, and judged at the highest level of cosmological scholarship as not a real candidate for a 'final theory': Its 'particle' creation seems open-ended!.
It is very clever and very helpful and useful, but is unlikely to survive this century as serious 'science'.

[Dancing David]

If you want to explain the Universe by quantum physics you need to understand it is but a 'current' perception, and judged at the highest level of cosmological scholarship as not a real candidate for a 'final theory': Its 'particle' creation seems open-ended!.
It is very clever and very helpful and useful, but is unlikely to survive this century as serious 'science'.


Considering you ignore the evidence and drivel about Electron when there are 12 basic partciles and four gauge bosons, just means that you understanding of physics is as poor as your understanding of the mysteries.

I blame your teachers, they must be scoundrels and laughing at you behind your back.

Your mish mosh of delusions is holding you back, your alleged teachers are far from explaining reality, much less understanding it.

Four basic forces Maatorc, not one. The electron will not make the W,Z force carriers either, nor will it make anything other than itself.

But please shame the name of Maat longer. (Darn shame that.)

Your lack of theory is amazing, please tell us why the particles have the energy levels that they do?

How does the doubling work in your mystery of emptyness?

So how does the pairs of electrons explain the mass of the proton?

[maatorc]

Considering ...... proton?

Your babyish derisory drivel identifies you as one I do not speak to: End of discussion.

[yy2bggggs]

maatorc:

Do you have any evidence for this electron theory?

[Dancing David]

Your babyish derisory drivel identifies you as one I do not speak to: End of discussion.

i see, when confronted with your lack of knowledge you run away?

I still blame your teachers and it is a darn shame Mattorc.

You are wrong about physics and they lied to you about the mysteries.

It is not baby drivel to point out that you can't build the world we see out of electrons and that you can't predict the mass of the proton.

But your 'secret masters' are scoundrels and they are abusing you. Turn your back on them. If they knew the truth they would not hide, and you would know it because they would not hide. Yet they hide and pretend. And you are abused.

Test them, challenge them, exert your freedom to choose. Why do they hide? The mysteries CAN NOT be abused, they have no such power and they are lying to you.

They hide because they are bad teachers. They either encourage you in foolishness, or feed you foolishness.

I swear this by the stars, my sacred heart and my sacred tounge. If they were true teachers they would not hide. The mysteries are what they are, they are available to all, they are seen by all, many turn away from them, but they are open and not hidden.

[dlorde]

Hmm. I may have to try that.

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

[Pure Argent]

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

I hope that's the case, as the alternative is that I'm making a complete and total *** of myself.

[Terry]

Oh, how disappointing, You haven't heard of the infrared disater?

What is the infrared disaster? Is it related to the Ultraviolet catastrophe ?

[Malerin]

It seems to me that these people are deliberately interpreting the semantics of the terms you use in the least appropriate way, and criticising your argument as meaningless or invalid on that basis. A subtle straw man. Using this, ridicule, and superciliousness, they hope to frustrate and humiliate you and boost their own egos. I doubt you can make them question their assumptions.

The skeptics here aren't that bad.

[Dancing David]

What is the infrared disaster? Is it related to the Ultraviolet catastrophe ?


I was sooooooooo wrong.
Oh man i knew I should have looked that up! Um... no! It is an obscure doctrine of Negatory Nabobs.

[maatorc]

maatorc: Do you have any evidence for this electron theory?

Quantum Mechanics and the Electron.

QM calls ‘quarks’ elementary particles, but they never exist separately.
Quarks can just as easily be understood as composite particles comprised of electron clusters.

Atomic nuclei can just as easily be understood as consisting of electron clusters comprising protons.
In QM there are too many so-called elementary particles.
The standard model is too complicated to qualify as the true unified understanding of the universe.

As a grand unification QM is seen at the highest level as not entirely satisfactory as it suffers from many problems of interpretation and fails to provide an answer why there are 3 rather than just 1 or even 999 particles.

Although a part of modern theory of particles, quarks and gluons never emerge directly or in isolation.

An accurate agreement between calculation and experiment in QM is not evidence that the theory must be the literal description of the physical world. The theory of electron clusters, as found for example in subatomic expansion cosmology, is seen as an alternative explanation of the QM multiple elementary particles concept. Whatever explanation is sought, for any observation, it is possible to find an abstraction to model it.
With the electron as the one-only subatomic particle in the universe, protons and neutrons are subatomic objects composed of many hundreds of electrons.
Quarks are smaller sub-groups of electrons.
A positron is seen as a particle with the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge.

Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks composed of electrons.

QM will continue to excellently ‘explain’ the physical world even though it does not identify quarks as electron clusters, and the electron as the one only particle type in the universe.

[yy2bggggs]

Quantum Mechanics and the Electron.

QM calls ‘quarks’ elementary particles, but they never exist separately.Sure they do. They just don't tend to exist separately under lower energies.
Quarks can just as easily be understood as composite particles comprised of electron clusters.
Atomic nuclei can just as easily be understood as consisting of electron clusters comprising protons.
Can you show me how?
In QM there are too many so-called elementary particles.Too many for what?
The standard model is too complicated to qualify as the true unified understanding of the universe.
I'm confused. I don't understand why this is relevant. The claim that an electron is a fundamental particle is indeed simpler, but:
I don't understand why the unified model needs to be simple
I don't understand why, if the unified model were simple, electrons would be the fundamental unit
As a grand unification QM is seen at the highest level as not entirely satisfactory as it suffers from many problems of interpretation and fails to provide an answer why there are 3 rather than just 1 or even 999 particles.
Sure... the standard model is incomplete. I can buy that.
Although a part of modern theory of particles, quarks and gluons never emerge directly or in isolation.
Not sure what you mean by "emerge" here.
An accurate agreement between calculation and experiment in QM is not evidence that the theory must be the literal description of the physical world.I'm not sure what you mean by "literal description", but this finally gets into the realm of philosophy.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "literal description". Descriptions will always remain descriptions, and there will necessarily be a intension/extension dichotomy. At best you can only get levels of understanding of the fundamentals in the mind.
The theory of electron clusters, as found for example in subatomic expansion cosmology, is seen as an alternative explanation of the QM multiple elementary particles concept.But this is passive tense. "The theory ... is seen as". That doesn't sound to me like reason to believe this particular theory.
Whatever explanation is sought, for any observation, it is possible to find an abstraction to model it.
Sure.
With the electron as the one-only subatomic particle in the universe, protons and neutrons are subatomic objects composed of many hundreds of electrons.
Quarks are smaller sub-groups of electrons.
A positron is seen as a particle with the same mass as an electron but with a positive charge.

Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks composed of electrons.

QM will continue to excellently ‘explain’ the physical world even though it does not identify quarks as electron clusters, and the electron as the one only particle type in the universe.
Okay, and again, this is simpler, but I don't see how this establishes that it's true. So far, it appears that your argument is that the standard model is complicated, and your model is simpler. But I don't see why your model is particularly suggested by evidence. What about the muon neutrino (which has a fraction of the mass of an electron)? And what about the fractional charges of quarks? I can easily see that there could be a more fundamental, simpler theory, but I can't see how its fundamental particle can be an electron.

If QM explains everything fairly well, you should at a minimum be able to map from the electron theory to the standard model, perhaps even with testable implications. But even if not, the mapping should be possible.

[Dancing David]

:popcorn1

[maatorc]

Sure they do. ...... the mapping should be possible.

The subject is so vast we could talk for ever.
This discussion, there are others of course, on the electron concept may interest you: < http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1581126018 >.
I will finish here as I do not want the question of a fundamental particle to hijack the thread.

[yy2bggggs]

The subject is so vast we could talk for ever.
This discussion, there are others of course, on the electron concept may interest you: < http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1581126018 >.
I will finish here as I do not want the question of a fundamental particle to hijack the thread.
I'm not sure it would. I read the first chapter... not too impressed at all. It sounds like a dead end. Thanks for the discussion though.

[Theophage]

Maatorc, if your ideas are correct, why are they not mainstream physics? Have you submitted these ideas to the appropriate journals? Is there a conspiracy against you?

[maatorc]

Maatorc, if your ideas are correct, why are they not mainstream physics? Have you submitted these ideas to the appropriate journals? Is there a conspiracy against you?

I take it you mean the electron as the sole universal particle.
Mainstream physics accepts QM as the correct perception of a general universal physics. This, as in the past, will unfold into other models, on which subject see, for example, "Science And Sanity" by Korzybski.
The electron concept is not new in physics discussions, with "The Final Theory" by McCutcheon being a recent addition to the literature. It is also at the heart of occult anatomy, where, contrary to common orthodox material viewpoints, the true human 'self'-'psyche'-'soul' is understood as a mental body consisting of material electrons.
There is no conspiracy, merely a current supremacy of QM in orthodox thinking which will change as human perceptions unfold to other perspectives. Among other things, general thinking and orthodox science will probably move beyond the notion that 'psychic' can only mean 'stage magic' and 'cold reading'.

[Theophage]

So your haven't submitted your ideas to physics journals then? How are they going to become mainstream if they aren't submitted? Is someone else going to do it for you?

I am glad that you don't see it as a conspiracy against you. But then how could it be if you've never submitted your ideas? You should get on that.

[Dancing David]

http://www.thefinaltheory.com/


We all depend on science to help us understand
our world and our place within it, but if science
itself veers down the wrong path it takes all of
us along with it -- off course, often for centuries.
The Final Theory shows this has actually
occurred, starting with Newton and accelerating
with Einstein, taking us centuries off course. As
a result we now have a science of dark matter,
dark energy, time travel, parallel universes,
10 dimensions, virtual particles, several theories
of gravity, and on it goes with no end in sight.


http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html


Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
Holes and how even light can't escape?

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from
intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to
expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,
smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in
plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our
scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but
which actually exposes how little is truly understood about
either.

[Theophage]

That is awesome, Dancing David! Final Theory indeed...

Edited to Add:

Oh wait! This one is priceless:


Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity
endlessly without draining a power source?

A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to
today's science.


:D