Debate How big do you think is the Universe?

[Maciamo]

But I would say a chrystal is "designed" too. What is the difference really between an "artifact" and a "natural object"? If humans are created by nature, and building are created by humans, how can buildings be unnatural? How can something natural create something unnatural? I think we only see it that way because WE created it. But if a beaver creates a dam, no one calls that unnatural. When we create a building, we're taking resources found in nature and forming them into something we find useful. The beaver does the same thing. And I don't think the fact that what we've created is more "advanced" than what the beaver has created makes any difference.

The terms "natural" and "unnatural" are not suitable to discuss the evolution of the universe, life, and what is created by life. It is true that everything is in a sense 'natural", because Nature is the universe in movement, and humans (or beavers) and their creations are part of it. However, we humans normally use the word "natural" from our own point of view to describe what is not made by humans. That is why we reach such absurdities as saying that a dam built by a beaver is natural but a house built by humans is not.

The main problem while discussing philosophical issues is the definition/meaning of the words we use. I would just drop the terms "natural" and "unnatural" altogether from this discusion, as it is obvious that from the universe's point of view, everything is natural ("unnatural" only means "unreal" or "inexistent").

So why are things in the universe organised ? Who said they were ? We humans find it organised because it fits our perception of organisation, something that matches our own structure.

To put it simply, the forces in the universe can all be reduced to "positive energy" vs "negative energy" ("neutral energy" is as theoretical a thing as "pure emptiness"). W.J. Sidis (the guy whose IQ was estimated between 250 and 300) gives his own views on the animate and inanimate here. His explanation on the theories of life match very well my views of the negative vs postive energy. He explained that life is not an anomaly, but that up to 50% of the universe could be acting the same way, i.e. trying to preserve its energy rather than consumming it and changing state.

 

[Brooker]

So why are things in the universe organised ?

There is obviously order to the universe. Is there any such thing as true chaos? If we think something is chaotic, it probably just follows a pattern we have yet to understand. There's order in atoms, the Earth's revolutions around the sun, matter. I'm speaking very broadly here, but I don't think anything could exist without some kind of order. There's a pattern to everything around us. I challenge anyone to find something that has no form of organization.

 

[Maciamo]

There is obviously order to the universe. Is there any such thing as true chaos?

No no, you don't understand my point. I was not implying that everything was chaos, but that the very idea or "chaos" vs "organisation" depend on our own perception as humans. It could be that other intelligent being in the universe have a different perception of what is "organised". And yet, that would still be from a life being point of view. For instance, it is logical to think that between 2 "intelligent" living creatures, the most sophisticated might have a stricter definition of organisation. Hope that make sense...

 

[lexico]

W.J. Sidis ... gives his own views on the animate and inanimate here.

Without looking at his theory as a whole, let me only point out two details.

the peculiarity of life is its ability to draw on more energy than the second law of thermodynamics would allow(1); that is, its ability, in some circumstances at least, to reserve that second law.

And again, we have seen that reversals of the second law are characterized by ability to use a fund of reserve energy that physical bodies cannot use. Let us say that the mechanical efficiency of a set of bodies is 85%; the reciprocal, or 118%, is that of the same set in the reverse universe.

But as, under some circumstances, producing special results in the way of heat, etc., not quite 85% of the energy will be used, but, let us say, only 50%, then under those special cases in the reverse universe requiring more energy, the mechanical efficiency will be not 118%, but 200%(2), thus using over five times the amount of reserve energy normally used. This excess constitutes James's "reserve energy."

It is unclear what he means by "more energy than the second law of thermodynamics would allow."

2nd Law: A far reaching and powerful law, it is typically stated in one of two ways:

It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement) or

It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no thermal effect than a positive heat flow from a colder body to a hotter one. (Clausius Statement)

The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation Theorem).

In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.

1. Large bodies over a non-insignifacant durarion of time do not exhibit a heat flow from the cold to the hot. Living beings are by definition a large body; even one cell is too large to be considered a small system. Heat in a living body always flows from the hot to the cold, even when it is in motion. In fact his statement (1) is in direct violation of the 1st law of Thermodynamics which guarantee conservation of energy. He most surely had a problem defining the system under observation with precision, or went with a totally different definition of the laws of thermodynamics.

2. The mechanical efficiency which is defined as (work produced from a heat engine)/(total heat energy difference) is always below 100%. Hence his statement (2) of 118% or 200% is preposterous unless he has a totally different set of thermodynamic definition and theory. Furthermore, even 85% or 50% is highly unlikely. For example, currently most advanced gasoline-based auto engines developed barely exceed 15% mechanical efficiency.

Perhaps we can be lucky if by using bio-mechanical hybrid mechanisms break the 20% or 30% barrier in cars in the future, but even that has to be seen. Nevertheless biological systems are know to have higher (mechanical energy produced)/(heat energy cosumed) ratio, but anything beyond 100% is impossible, and most likely somewhere between 20% to 40%.

 

[Maciamo]

Lexico, I was not referring to this part of the theory, but rather tis one :

According to the conclusions we have reached, there are in the universe what we have called positive tendencies, neutral tendencies, and negative tendencies, all of which are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles of matter.
...

Now if you want to argue with the genius professor of Harvard, well you can't because he is dead !

 

[RockLee]

Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations?? I don't believe in a creator...who says the universe was created by 'GOD' ?? Everytime a person can't come up with a solution or doesn't understand something it's the work of 'GOD'...give me a break please kashii:

 

[Brooker]

For instance, it is logical to think that between 2 "intelligent" living creatures, the most sophisticated might have a stricter definition of organisation. Hope that make sense...

I think I kinda get what you're saying. But I'm saying that I think EVERYTHING has some kind of organization to varying degrees of complexity.

And to make the tree falling in the woods argument (but lets not start debating that) I think the organization would exist even if no one was around to perceive it. So the opinions of the "2 intelligent living creatures" is of little significance and has no effect of the nature of "the organization".

Rocklee wrote....

Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations??

I try to avoid using the word "God" because a lot of other connotations come with it. And usually what I'm referring to as "God" is nowhere near what the typical perception of what "God" is. Most people picture some dude with a white beard and robe and that's far from what I'm thinking of. I end up using terms like "the force" but then I sound like some weird Star Wars freak.

 

[lexico]

According to the conclusions we have reached, there are in the universe what we have called positive tendencies, neutral tendencies, and negative tendencies, all of which are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles of matter.

Okay, sorry about the dead professor. It is only because his idea of the three universal tendencies are based on his interpretation of the physical laws of nature that I made the argument. But even here he is causing confusion by saying "the three tendencies are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles."

Not all physical laws are about reversible phenomena. Some natural phenomena are indeed irreversible, such as heat flow, such as orderly systems (mechanical, kinetic, few-bodied systems, clearly demarcated division between high-temp. and low-temp.) dissipating into disorderly systems (heat energy, my room getting messy, dissolution of marriage, mental breakdown). Even if it may appear on the surface that certain disorderly systems returning to orderly states, it is only at the cost of hidden work with even greater loss of order that the system appears to be gaining order.

A good example would be the cooling of a room with an air conditioner. On the surface, it appears that the room is gaining a higher order, and heat energy may appear to be flowing from a low region (the cooled room) to a high region (outside the bldg.). But the system under observation must include not only the room and the outside area, but also the power plant that provides the electrical power to run the air conditioner. For every calory that is pumped out of the room, several calories are wasted at the power plant, to cover the loss in the air conditioning process itself.

It therefore becomes problematic to insist on the three tendencies when many-bodied physical phenomena are known to be irreversible. Of course, he is not you, so please don't take my argument as a personal criticism; but then your idea of the three (two?) tendencies deserve definitions in their own right.

 

[Maciamo]

Not all physical laws are about reversible phenomena. Some natural phenomena are indeed irreversible, such as heat flow, such as orderly systems (mechanical, kinetic, few-bodied systems, clearly demarcated division between high-temp. and low-temp.) dissipating into disorderly systems (heat energy, my room getting messy, dissolution of marriage, mental breakdown).

Yes, I agree with you here.

A good example would be the cooling of a room with an air conditioner. On the surface, it appears that the room is gaining a higher order, and heat energy may appear to be flowing from a low region (the cooled room) to a high region (outside the bldg.). But the system under observation must include not only the room and the outside area, but also the power plant that provides the electrical power to run the air conditioner. For every calory that is pumped out of the room, several calories are wasted at the power plant, to cover the loss in the air conditioning process itself.

That's a good point. But justly I think Sidis implied that the total of the positive energy (disorder) and negative energy (order) in the universe could be 50-50, and that when there is more disorder in one part, it is compensated by more order somewhere else.

I like to think of the universe in terms of + and -, where + represents the "excited energy" (heat, velocity, etc.) and - represents a force of cohesion and attraction. Scientific norms have decided that proton are +, while electrons are -, but it really should be the opposite, from my point of view. Similarily, planets are like protons attracting dust with - energy and gaining mass. But that could even work for sexual life beings. Imagine an ovum and spermatozoa. The ovum is big (like a proton, or planet) and filled with - energy, while the spermatozoa are much smaller and move at a proportionally high speed (like electrons or space dust/asteroids). You can even use this binary system for the Hindu religion, where Vishnu, the protector (order), represents negative energy and Shiva, the destructor (chaos), represents positive energy.

What I found interesting is Sidis' theory was the idea that life was negative energy ("super-order") taken a step further, so that it would behave differently to some physical laws (eg. thermodynamics) than inert matter. If that could be confirmed, then I think there could be some sort of "anti-life", which behaves the same irregular way but with positive energy ("super-chaos"). Just a hypothesis... :bluush:

 

[lexico]

The "mind" of the universe is the order that allows things to come together to form more complex things, like atoms, planets, people, stars, hamsters, etc.

Somewhere in this forum there was a post on nature & the universe being a huge analog computer, doing exacting computations without much thinking.

It is an interesting idea; something like the legend of the island where the shipwrecked landed, started a fire at which point a giant crab arose and ate all the people. Likewise, the universe could be a giant living being with us dangling onto a spec of dust for dear life. A Star Trek original had one episode where the strange nebular thing turned out to have life, a mind, emotions, and intelligence.

Your reference to the force is also interesting; the movements of physical objects exhibit exacting quantities such as time, postion, momentum, angular momentum all related and all in a predictable fashion; as if there were a super computer planning out its entire move beforehand.

 

[lexico]

Den4's Claim to Know the Universe

I guess the only thing I do know for sure is that I know nothing!
http://www.discover.com/apr_02/featguth.html

"This also is more than theory. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing. "

Since the universe = nothing, so I know nothing....

Den4, incarnation of cosmic wisdom! Could you possibly dig up the broken article ? I can't exactly begin a discussion on nothing (your definition of the universe) on nothing (broken article link). The conclusion of your quote also indicates that you may know all there is to know...

 

[lexico]

Now I think the problem is your definition of infinte. What you are describing is the same as the infinite to me. There are many kinds of infinite, among others:

- open infinite (3D infinite extending in all directions)

- circular infinite (if a 2D line goes in circle, it is infinite because you can count an infinite number of 360 degree turns, although the shape is finite)

What you are describing is an 3D circular infinite. My conception of the universe is more of an open infinite.

It would help to limit our discussion to definite measures of ininity. "Closed infinity" as you describe it is not infinite. If you are talking about an infinite number of points, then a circle of 1 cm diameter would also have an infinite number of points. But the quantity in length is only pie cms and no more. Likewise the surface of a 2 dimensional closed space (e.g. a globe) has a limited surface area, and is hence finite. A closed 3-dimensional space would have a definite volume which is also finite. So my conception of the universe is finite, not infinite as you would put it.

That's why I said if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway

Then you agree that there is no proof of this boundless emptiness beyond what we can observe ?

Certainly not. Of all the main Western philosophers, and I can tell you that those with whom I the most at odds are the Platonians, Neo-Platonians and Idealists (eg. Hegel). My conception of the universe is too materialist for that.

Actually Plato and Pythagoras did not believe in infinity. Pythagoras believed that everything could be described by a finite arrangement of the natural numbers. Aristotle was the first to recognize the importance of infinity yet remained at the simple division of potential unfinity (infinite divisibility; similar to your closed infinity; number of points on a line segment) and actual infinity (such as flow of time). Pre-Augustine Christians believed that God and the Universe was nebulously infinite. Augustine adapting the Platonic philosophy to Christianity belived that God and his thoughts were infinite. Thomas Aquinas argued (in a cirlce) that it would have been impossible for God to create anything infinite. And at the end of this rather long history of philosophy I find a parallel between your logic and Thomas Aquinas'.

Funnily enough, that's what I was thinking to tell you, as you are the one to mix science and philosophy. Science is nothing without observations and experiments. Philosophy is based on logics and reasoning (taking what we know of sciences into account, of course). In other words, science is only the practical and experimentable branch of philosophy. With our primitive knowledge of the universe, how could we give so much credit to science ? There was a time when people thought that the Eart was the centre of the universe, then the sun, the sun our galaxy... Until a few years ago, most people still believed in the theory of the Big Bang.

I am surprised that you claim yourself to be a materialist but not a believer in science. How can that be ? You too must be aware that philosophy without a sense of reality can lose validity quite easily.

In the mean time I do not mix science and philosophy. And science is not only observations and experiments. Theres is a lot else that is going on. If you look at the history of science, there is a large-scale process that emerges, called "asymptotic knowlege." The scientific process involves much theorizing and cross examination to ever increase numerical accuracy, logical simplicity, and coherence. I believe that science is but a servant to philosophy, being devoid of a unfying world view. Still a powerful servant, so that it is important to critically see what the scientists are doing and saying.

Not being a scientist, I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory bacame outdated. What solid evidence caused its demise, are you aware ?

No. In a metaphysic level (god, the universe...), this is reserved to religion and philosophy. The difference is that religion makes up nice stories just based on imagination and spiritual belief, while philosophy mostly uses reason and logics (altough the Idealistic current of philosophy is more pantheistic- like, and thus more religious).

As much as you consider religious explanations mythological and groundless, I find certain logical arguments employed by philosophers and mathematicians purely subjective and primitive, not fit for argument of a universal nature. Excatly which philosophy do you propose ?

What ? I don't believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated by logics. As explained just above, I am not religious but philosophical. Using science (which requires experiment) to explain metaphyical problems is futile.

Any philosophical theory regarding ontological or epistemological matters must regard physical phenomena to avoid misjudgement, and therefore science must be referred to, not necessarily as primary evidence, but to avoid misconceptions which abounds in philosophies disregarding physical and historical reality, observation, and the learning process.

The difference between you and me is that you attach too much importance of science and not enough to logics. But our scientifical knowledge evolves much faster than logics and must be updated all the time (eg. reading the news today we now suppose that the first bipeds or "humans" were not 3.2m years old but 4m years old thanks to a new discovery - where will we be in 10 or 100 years from now ?). It still cannot answer questions related to the unknown and unobserved such as emptiness or infinity (which can only be grasped by logics with the help of mathematics).

I don't deny that there are many holes in our historical knowledge and understanding. I agree with you in that what is not observed does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not significant. But even philosophy or mathematics are not perfect. They evolve with other knowledges, which includes the science of the physical world.

 

[Mycernius]

Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations?? I don't believe in a creator...who says the universe was created by 'GOD' ?? Everytime a person can't come up with a solution or doesn't understand something it's the work of 'GOD'...give me a break please kashii:

I know where you are coming from, but Brooker seem to implying not a god as in a religious God, but an intended or unintended designer of the universe. Maybe the universe is driven to expand and create life and planets the same way a plant is. There is no thought behind a plants life it just does what it does. Nature takes it course and that might be the underlying force of the universe. God is an invention of Man to explain things he cannot do himself. If you follow the religious side of the arguement you still end up at the same basic question: who created God? There must be a designer behind it. If Gods do exist they are a natural part of the universe and subject to it's laws. The arguement that God is timeless is usually quoted by those who don't question. As a non-believer I am put under pressure to explain the universe without a god. Why don't the religious have to do the same thing, without refering to a book 3000 years old? Man only advances by questioning the world around him. If he didn't we would still be sat in cave, afraid of thunder and eating raw meat.

 

[lexico]

But I would say a chrystal is "designed" too. What is the difference really between an "artifact" and a "natural object"? If humans are created by nature, and building are created by humans, how can buildings be unnatural? How can something natural create something unnatural? I think we only see it that way because WE created it. But if a beaver creates a dam, no one calls that unnatural. When we create a building, we're taking resources found in nature and forming them into something we find useful. The beaver does the same thing. And I don't think the fact that what we've created is more "advanced" than what the beaver has created makes any difference.

Of course the distinction between a natural object and an artifact was based on human standards. If we wanted to get technical, I could also quote the manufactured zircon and even argue zircons as counterexamples against my own logic.

The point is that artificiality aside, levels of chaos, regularity (predictability) and higher-order chaos (playfulness) can be defined and thus measured numerically. (I believe they do that in information science, although I know very little about it. :blush: ) So there's no big mystery here, but delineating objects in the universe into the three classes of 1) chaotic order, 2) regular order, and 3) regular and creative order (life, language, literature, art, music, architecture, history, science, film, libraries, the forum, etc.).

But without order, that could never happen. The only leap I'm making is attributing that order to "the force". Without that order (without "the force") I don't believe anything could ever form, just random stuff floating around, bouncing off each other, never forming into anything.

This paragraph calls for three remarks.
1. The absolute mystery of the force (=basic, simple physical laws of nature) is undeniable, I agree
2. Attributing supranatural power(s) (e.g. life force, different laws governing life forms) in addition to the simple, basic, known laws of nature isn't really necessary as you say.
3. Randomness and natural selection at the chemical level should be sufficiient to explain the generation of the first life forms on earth, and possibly on other planets with life-fostering conditions.

Yes, but WHY? What makes that happen? Mother nature? Science? The force? I think they're all the same. My beliefs are all about the unification of everything.

As I said above, anyone with a clear mind sould agree that the cause of the force(s) of nature is indeed the greatest mystery that science itself cannot explain. Or perhaps a super science of the future might come up with a brilliant theory; I really don't know.

I think it takes a much bigger leap of faith to think that all of that would just happen on it's own. Without order and the universe's WILL (which I also attribute to "the force") to form into something more complex, that would never have happened.

Although I;m being repetitive let me just say simple physical laws should suffice. If the scientists didn't get it across how it could be so by now, they've been wasting research+teaching resources without clear thinking, that's all.

 

[Maciamo]

Then you agree that there is no proof of this boundless emptiness beyond what we can observe ?

I didn't deny it. I think the difference between your conception of finite universe and mine of infinite universe is just a matter of wording and definitions.

Actually Plato and Pythagoras did not believe in infinity. Pythagoras believed that everything could be described by a finite arrangement of the natural numbers. Aristotle was the first to recognize the importance of infinity yet remained at the simple division of potential unfinity (infinite divisibility; similar to your closed infinity; number of points on a line segment) and actual infinity (such as flow of time). Pre-Augustine Christians believed that God and the Universe was nebulously infinite. Augustine adapting the Platonic philosophy to Christianity belived that God and his thoughts were infinite. Thomas Aquinas argued (in a cirlce) that it would have been impossible for God to create anything infinite. And at the end of this rather long history of philosophy I find a parallel between your logic and Thomas Aquinas'.

I can't understand what you are trying to say. You compare me to Plato and Thomas Aquinas, although they are the one to deny the idea of an infinite universe, while I believe in an infinite universe. That's just the opposite !

I am surprised that you claim yourself to be a materialist but not a believer in science. How can that be ? You too must be aware that philosophy without a sense of reality can lose validity quite easily.

Maybe I did not express myself clearly. I never said I did not believe in science. I have always been very scientific (more than literary or artistic). But like you I believe that "science but a servant to philosophy, being devoid of a unfying world view".

Not being a scientist, I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory became outdated. What solid evidence caused its demise, are you aware ?

several studies have shown that some parts of the universe were older than the Big Bang. Others showed that some galaxies evolved in different directions than that of the universe after the Big Bang, leading some people to think that there could have been several Big Bangs. That's for science. Now many scientists and philosophers believe that a Big Bang could just be one major explosion, but not the start of the universe, and certainly not the start of "reality". It doesn't make sense if there are more than one Big Bangs.

As much as you consider religious explanations mythological and groundless, I find certain logical arguments employed by philosophers and mathematicians purely subjective and primitive, not fit for argument of a universal nature.

I agree. Greek philosphers were mostly primitive, because after all they didn't have much knowledge 2500 years ago. As for the subjectiveness, there are many pseudo-philosophers. I personally disliked those philosophers who try to "reconcile" science/logics and religion, like Thomas Aquinas, or the spiritual philosophers like Hegel. I certainly do not agree with most philosophers (how could I when so many have incompatible ideas ?). And as you said it so well : "But even philosophy or mathematics are not perfect. They evolve with other knowledges, which includes the science of the physical world".

 

[Rich303]

Going off at a slight tangent;
I heard that 2 thirds of the universe is older than us (2 billion years as an example)
i.e. the stars and planets formed earlier,so evolution is at a more advanced stage.

2 billion years ago,the most advanced lifeform on Earth was a primitive worm.

Apparently, for us to comprehend something 2 billion years in advance of us might be the same as the primitive worm trying to comprehend humans.
Aliens might not be little green men after all.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Life wasn't even as complicated as a worm 2 billion years ago - it was not until 600 million year ago that multi-cellular life evolved - so it would be more like an amoeba trying to comprehend us!

I think the universe is infinite and that nothing exists outside it. If this is difficult to comprehend it is because our brains are not sophisicated enough, not because it is not possible. Actually, I believe we live in a multiverse made up of an infinite number of infinite universes.

 

[Void]

i really doubt that 'comprehend' is suitable for ameba.... therefore, we might not be that hopeless after all ;o)

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Which is exactly the point Rich was making - trying to imagine what life will be like in 2 billion years time is as much use as trying to imagine an amoeba comprehending us! Mind you, I don't agree with that, because I don't believe that evolution is necessarily progressive.

 

[Void]

ameba just can`t comprehend! it has no brain with numerous cells and even greater number of interactions among them. Cultural and social stereotypes do limit our mind, but not always. And if it happens for humans to find out that there is another life-form in the universe some of them (wouldn`t say for the whole humanity) will be able to step over bounaries of mind, reason and upbrinning.
We are not comparable with worms and amebas on that level, we have the same 'bricks' in DNA, use carbon to constract many elements, produce 'wastes', and have common mechanism for simple nurvous reactions.... but that`s all similarity