Questions and answers

[GoldCoinLover]

Here's some questions I made, which a mentor on the physics forums answered. Please note some of them I don't believe in.

Originally Posted by QuantumTheory
Does anyone know why the universe began?


No.

Quote:
Why did life on earth began?


The chemistry was right.

Quote:
Are there any "right " religions?


Every religion is right to its believers and wrong to everyone else.

Quote:
What happens to you after you die? (Besides the usual process.)


Anybody who says more than the usual process has a lot of proving to do.

Quote:
What is the purpose of life?


To continue.

Quote:
Why is the sky blue?


Interaction of solar photons with electron shell of oxygen molecules.

Quote:
Why is the universe black?


There hasn't been enough time since it became transparent for light from the most distant regions to reach us. So there's only a finite, not an infinite light reaching us, and it leaves most of the sky black.

Quote:
Is time travel theortically possible?


Very theoretically, yes. It requires matter with negative energy; such a thing is not exactly impossible, but it sure ain't common!

Quote:
Is it impossible to go back in time before you created the time machine?


This is a feature of one time travel scheme using wormholes.

Quote:
What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, before you were born?


It would have to be before his child, your parent, was born to have any particular effect! Several possibilities: The world would change but nobody would realize it, and you wouldn't be in it. Or the world would branch into a universe in which you didn't succeed and one in which you did. Or nature would somehow conspire to prevent you from succeeding. Take your pick.

Quote:
If you go back in time, can you alter the past? What would happen if you did ? Would there be a different future?


See my reply under grandfathercide.

 

[Mamoru-kun]

I agree with everything except with the time travel things.

Considering that the time is infinite, so with an infinite number of lives in the universe, in which you would find an infinite number of scientific societies, I can see only two hypotheses:

1) time travel is possible: with what I pointed above, we should see those machine everywhere in our actual time (not saying in an infinity of please in our actual time, which would be harder to imagine)

2) as it's not the case, I see only two possible conclusions:
2a) the time itself is not infinite (or something will happen after which there will be no more life in the universe)
2b) or, what I personally believe in, past travel is simply not possible...

 

[lexico]

Good Q & A, Gold_Coin_Lover.

I disagree with everything including the time travel thing.

Contradiction spirit Lexico ?

Yes, Mamoru-kun, very much so. As much as I like you guys and the debate itself, SCIENCE is such a terrible thing that us mortals have created that it gets me all worked up just by the mentioning of its abominable name ! But yes, I was the rebellious kind when younger. Now where was I ? Backtracking in time, okay, the Q & A...

Does anyone know why the universe began?

A1: No.

The beauty of simplicity is quite misleading, for simplicity alone does not make the principle of Occam's Razor universally applicable; btw that that principle has not been proven either logically or empirically. In fact it may very well turn out that the simplest explanation might not be the best theory to accurately describe a natural phenomenon.

To examine whether anyone knows why the universe began, there are several assumptions that need to be examined.

1) Is knowing at the present moment why the universe began possible ?

2) If the knowing were possible indeed, and someone succeeded in knowing, what kind of knowledge would that be ?

3) If any one person knew at the present moment why the universe began, by what means is the knowledge transmitted to us ?

4) Is the question a meaningful question of science ?

Are there any "right" religions?

A3: Every religion is right to its believers and wrong to everyone else.

Not quite true. A religion is a system of beliefs and practices that re-connects man and everything else that got separated since the birth of consciousness. Many believers question the validity of those beliefs and practices. If any religion is considered right, there can be only a handful of accidental reasons to it being "right."

1) They are offended by others who say that their religion is not right; humans are rebelious, and would take every opportunity to negate whatever had been said by the previous poster.

2) The "leftists" have left for fear of religous persecution; e.g. Puritans on the Mayflower.

3) The remaining believers (the majority of them) happen to be right handed, since about 90 % of all humans are right handed.

4) The kings (while they lasted) were the leaders of the remaining population; he therefore declared it right by the kings' right.

5) According to the Declaration of Human Rights, it is your right to choose whatever religion as correct. In summary, a whole lot of accidental factors contributed to the particular religion being right, not necessity based on being a believer.

Why did life on earth begin ?

A2: The chemistry was right.

The answer assumes that Mr. Science knows more than (s)he could possibly know; and feigning knowledge that one does not have is hypocritical. Science cannot answer isolated, irreproducible phenomena. The Theory of Chemical Evolution is only a plausible explantion, and having the right materials is far from sufficient to explain the process. Physical conditions including the energy cycle of earth's primordial state is only poorly understood.

What happens to you after you die ? (Besides the usual process.)

A4: Anybody who says more than the usual process has a lot of proving to do.

One must define identity of the individual before attemtping to come up with a smart pearl of wisdom for an answer. The feigned wisdom is highly detrimental to the fostering of true philosophical thinking that such questions are supposed to stimulated. Therefore I accuse the answer for being superficial and degrading of a perfectly good question.

What is the purpose of life?

A5: To continue.

Again the answer is as shallow as others proved to be in the above. Nature and its processes are best understood as without intention. Mr. Science's answer again bastardised a good question by resorting to teleology. In kiddie language, such anthropomorphising abstract notions might make sense. Purpose is a product of human civilisation. Objectively speaking, life has no purpose, but man has created ideas that made him unique among other things on earth. The accumulation of memory is both the source of identity and purposefulness, not the other way around.

Why is the sky blue?

A6: Interaction of solar photons with electron shell of oxygen molecules.

Scattering of light is more prominent with blue-indigo-purple light due to the shorter wave length. Also should be mentioned; the range of visible light "evolved" out of the full range of electromagnetic waves reaching the earth's surface. Ultraviolet and infrared waves are less relialbe due to the great variance they exhibit-- electromagnetic waves from red to purple are those that show stable, ample amplitude, and hence became the basis for human vision. Although different species have different range of visible light, this range worked quite fine for humans. <== This needs a better explanation in the general sense, but must be mentioned when discussing the why about a color. The butterfly might have a totally different perception of the color blue-- color therefore is not an objective entity applicable to all species, and hence must not be treated as such.

Why is the universe black?

A7: There hasn't been enough time since it became transparent for light from the most distant regions to reach us. So there's only a finite, not an infinite light reaching us, and it leaves most of the sky black.

This answer is totally off. Black is not an objective color as the other colors. The blackness is best defined as electromagnetic waves going in, but not coming out or only marginally so. Time of transparency has no place in this discussion, and nowhere is evidence for a universe with an infinite mass.

Q8: Is time travel theortically possible?

A8: Very theoretically, yes. It requires matter with negative energy; such a thing is not exactly impossible, but it sure ain't common!

Q9: Is it impossible to go back in time before you created the time machine?

A9: This is a feature of one time travel scheme using wormholes.

Q10: What would happen to you if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, before you were born?

A10: It would have to be before his child, your parent, was born to have any particular effect! Several possibilities: The world would change but nobody would realize it, and you wouldn't be in it. Or the world would branch into a universe in which you didn't succeed and one in which you did. Or nature would somehow conspire to prevent you from succeeding. Take your pick.

Q11: If you go back in time, can you alter the past? What would happen if you did ? Would there be a different future?

A11: See my reply under grandfathercide.

All the discussion about time travel is flawed from the very beginning because any discussion about time-travel involves circular reasoning. Our understanding of travel is inseparable from the notion of time. Although Einstein conveniently treated time as the fourth axis, he did it only as a formality out of mathematical convenience. In fact it is not certain whether time is an independent variable like the other three spacial variables. We are under the impression that we control time, but that does not make time something that can be traversed at will.

 

[Mamoru-kun]

Contradiction spirit Lexico?

 

[Sensuikan San]

Contradiction spirit Lexico?

No ... I don't think that Lex is being too contradictory here ... I think he has generally put his points well. Let's just examine his answers - (Sorry folks I left out the original questions! It was getting a little crowded - so ... keep on scrolling ...!) I have added my own comments in a delightful 'dark red' ... well thought out ... informed ... advised ... and totally authoritative ...!

The beauty of simplicity is quite misleading, for simplicity alone does not make the principle of Occam's Razor universally applicable; btw that that principle has not been proven either logically or empirically. In fact it may very well turn out that the simplest explanation might not be the best theory to accurately describe a natural phenomenon.

To examine whether anyone knows why the universe began, there are several assumptions that need to be examined.

1) Is knowing at the present moment why the universe began possible ?

Good question – the answer is highly probably?c ?gNo!?h

2) If the knowing were possible indeed, and someone succeeded in knowing, what kind of knowledge would that be ?

I would suggest ?especulative?f at best.

3) If any one person knew at the present moment why the universe began, by what means is the knowledge transmitted to us ?

?c damned if I know ?c but possibly with a drunken slur!

4) Is the question a meaningful question of science ?

Inasmuch as ?gwhy?h is the key question – it is therefore subjective. The answer must be ?gNo!?h

Not quite true. A religion is a system of beliefs and practices that re-connects man and everything else that got separated since the birth of consciousness. Many believers question the validity of those beliefs and practices. If any religion is considered right, there can be only a handful of accidental reasons to it being "right."

1) They are offended by others who say that their religion is not right; humans are rebellious, and would take every opportunity to negate whatever had been said by the previous poster.

Agreed – e.g. ?gJarvis?h

2) The "leftists" have left for fear of religious persecution; e.g. Puritans on the Mayflower.

Agreed.

3) The remaining believers (the majority of them) happen to be right handed, since about 90 % of all humans are right handed.

Agreed.

4) The kings (while they lasted) were the leaders of the remaining population; he therefore declared it right.

Oh, yes. Agreed.

5) According to the Declaration of Human Rights, it is your right to choose whatever religion as correct. In summary, a whole lot of accidental factors contributed to the particular religion being right, not necessity based on being a believer.

Not quite sure what Lex is saying here?c

The answer assumes that QuantumTheory knows more than QuantumTheory could possibly know; and feigning knowledge that one does not have is hypocritical. Science cannot answer isolated, irreproducible phenomena. The Theory of Chemical Evolution is only a plausible explantion, and having the right materials is far from sufficient to explain the process. Physical conditions including the energy cycle of earth's primordial state is only poorly understood.

Agreed. To be ?gright?h – would assume that a predetermined result was sought – and a predetermined set of possible conditions was therefore required. This was not so. ?gSomething?h happened that resulted in ?gsomething?h ?c and here we are! ?c but is it what was ?gintended?h? Was it ?gright?h? What is ?gright?h?

One must define identity of the individual before attemtping to come up with a smart pearl of wisdom for an answer. The feigned wisdom is highly detrimental to the fostering of true philosophical thinking that such questions are supposed to stimulated. Therefore I accuse the answer for being superficial and degrading of a perfectly good question.

Agreed – We won?ft know until it happens to us ?c.!

Again the answer is as shallow as it proved to be in the above. Nature and its processes are best understood as without intention. QuantumTheory's answer again bastardised a good question by resorting to teleology. In kiddie language, such anthropomorphising abstract notions might make sense. Purpose is a product of human civilisation. Objectively speaking, life has no purpose, but man has created ideas that made him unique among other things on earth. The accumulation of memory is both the source of identity and purposefulness, not the other way around.

Totally agreed.

Scattering of light is more prominent with blue-indigo-purple light due to the shorter wave length. Also should be mentioned; the range of visible light "evolved" out of the full range of electromagnetic waves reaching the earth's surface. Ultraviolet and infrared waves are less relialbe due to the great variance they exhibit-- electromagnetic waves from red to purple are those that show stable, ample amplitude, and hence became the basis for human vision. Although different species have different range of visible light, this range worked quite fine for humans. <== This needs a better explanation in the general sense, but must be mentioned when discussing the why about a color. The butterfly might have a totally different perception of the color blue-- color therefore is not an objective entity applicable to all species, and hence must not be treated as such.

Very true. I would go further than Lexico on this one!
Just for the sake of argument – how do I know that what I see as ?gblue?h ?c is what you would see as blue ?c by my perception? You might see ?gmy blue?h as I would see ?ered?h! But – we could never prove it! Think about it – and any test you can come up with ?c!

This answer is totally off. Black is not an objective color as the other colors. The blackness is best defined as electromagnetic waves going in, but not coming out or only marginally so. Time of transparency has no place in this discussion, and nowhere is evidence for a universe with an infinite mass.

I think I might disagree with Lex here. In simplistic terms: All color is reflected light. Black is a total non reflection – white is a total reflection. Everything in between – a partial reflection. Given the speed of light and the vastness of the Universe ...the other guy might have a point with his answer!

All the discussion about time travel is flawed from the very beginning because any discussion about time-travel involves circular reasoning. Our understanding of travel is inseparable from the notion of time. Although Einstein conveniently treated time as the fourth axis, he did it only as a formality out of mathematical convenience. In fact it is not certain whether time is an independent variable like the other three spacial variables. We are under the impression that we control time, but that does not make time something that can be traversed at will.

Agreed. The truth is ?c nobody is still sure what ?gtime?h is ?c!
?c. But I would love to go back with a gun and have half an hour with Hitler?fs father ?c about 1886/7?c
?c. Bugger! I couldn?ft !

?W????

 

[Mamoru-kun]

Er...I'm not sure to have understood everything (too high english level there)...

 

[lexico]

You didn't miss much except I was bashing loose science talk. Basically I was saying (in many different ways) that the guy who pretended to answer Gold Coin Lover's questions was an imposter, pretending to know everything. Maybe a failed science teacher ? :clap:
Even if he wasn't one, I thought his answers were too hasty to be much useful, esp. since Gold Coil Lover was quite serious.
But yes, it wasn't all bad, since they can be starting points for more discussions. :biggrin:

 

[Void]

Someone said that time is an attempt of human mind to restrain the madness of eternity =) but it is also objectionable

Good points, Lexico, Sensuikan San