Mark_Chid

I believe that the question is 'meta-science', its asking something from outside of science itself and therefore I doubt anything inside science can find the answer - if there even IS an answer. In all worldviews there's an ultimate question that can't be answered - maybe this is one of them.

Mark_Chid

Science tells us that some questions cannot be answered because information can be destroyed, and when information is unavailable science cannot answer questions. An example is 'what caused the Big Bang' - thats unknowable because at the moment of the BIg Bang no information existed - everything was a single point.

Science knows there are questions that can't be answered because the data is not there on which to speculate.

Bill

That would be a very minority view today. The majority view is that the size of the "Big Bang" "nugget" (for those who even believe in the "Big Bang" "nugget," that is; see <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbang.shtml" target="_blank">Richard Carrier's essay</a> containing his objections to the "Big Bang" concept) at T=0 was around the Planck scale, which is still infinitely larger than "a single point."

== Bill

Bill

See, for instance, the <a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/cosmo.html" target="_blank">MonkeyGod</a> section of Vic Stenger's <a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/cosmo.html" target="_blank">Cosmology and Cosmythology</a> page. Therein, Stenger "toys" with the idea that the constants might take on different values.

On the other hand, in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=186" target="_blank">The Elegant Universe</a>, Brian Greene offers up the idea that some theme and variation of string theory might eventually produce all of the known cosmological constants as a natural product of the "Theory of Everything" (ToE).

The truth lies (obviously) someplace in the future. We will either find that truth before humanity is exterminated or we will not.

== Bill

KeithHarwood

It's not entirely certain that there are laws of physics. The major conservation laws are consequences of symmetry, The law of conservation of momentum follows from the observation that every point in space is pretty much like every other point. The law of conservation of angular momentum arises from the observation that every direction is space is pretty much like every other. The law of conservation of energy arises from the observation that every point in time is pretty much like every other point in time.

It may be that all the laws of physics end up as consequences arising from the hypothesis that everywhere is pretty much like everywhere else in every respect.

So, the new scriptures might begin, `And God said, "Let nowhere be special", and nowhere was special.'

Admittedly, t=0 looks special, but that might be just because we are using an inappropriate coordinate system to measure time.

Jonesy

I think the fact that the connection will be found is just a question of time. And there are laws which are yet to be confirmed. For example, today we have: invisibility, levitation, telepathy, antigravity flight === all = 'magic' or 'lunacy' (term used by ignorant people). In the future we will have: all the terms I've just mentioned === knowledge. And then we'll be able to perceive even more. Also, can you explain dreams? At the moment, people on Earth know next to nothing about dreams. For example, how long will it take us to get to the stage where, before I can go to sleep at night, I use my conscious mind to 'think up and program a quick dream situation', then go to sleep and let it play out? This could be useful where we want to test some situations, prior to doing it in real life. Who said dreams have tp be random? I'm pretty sure there are reasons for dreams and these are perfectly physical processes that we don't know how to control and thus 'let them happen', just like, for example, the growth of a pimple. Also, the body is another huge question. When will we advance enough to be able to, say, when you suddenly get your hand chopped off in a factory accident: 1. use your mind to stop the bleeding; 2. control (accelerate) the growth of cells to quickly grow a 'new' hand - just create many cells in the way you want them and there you go. This may sound like a lot of crap, but that would be ignorance.

And I agree with Jesse that all laws had to be there at Big Bang. It would be an impossible coincidence to get laws to 'form themselves', especially when they are part of the same process anyway. (all after the explosion of the big bang must be part of the same process - since EVERYTIHNG came from the Bang)

Answerer

Guys, if I'm correct, most of the laws of physics are formed during seventeenth century or so. At that time, the scientists don't really have a random view of the universe as everything was seen to behave in an orderly and deterministic manners which so-called set by God.
Since it had been known that all laws of physics only break down in points of singularities. It is reasonable that the physicists retain the 'old' scientifical language.

abe smith

JESSE & JONESY and all the others of us interested parties: My *Opinion* Iz that this-hyere particular{unique?) example of Cosmos we're extant in (this particular one-of-all-the-many series/array of possible & IMpossible universes) happens to be the one that WORKS so as to allow for us & all-this to exist like this (= what we seem to observe) & in accordance w/ these "laws". Think this out f' y'se'fs; I've got chores to do. Abe

Jonesy

No, the laws were not formed in the 17th century or so - they were only discovered, having always existed. In other words, mankind discovered what always was and wrote books about it. And even some of that current interpretation could be found wrong in the future (eg. we may find enough about electrons to kill off the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple - which only exists because we don't know enough). Once we can predict all aspects of electrons' behaviour EXACTLY, there would be no uncertainty left and Heisenberg would join the many scientists, for example pre-Copernicus astronomers in the 'I wrongly interpreted reality but now I see how wrong I was' category.

beausoleil

"Science knows there are questions that can't be answered because the data is not there on which to speculate."

I'm away from my library at the mo', but I remember reading someone saying in the 19th century that we would never have any idea what powered stars because in principle we could never get any data.

There may be problems for which data is in principle unavailable, but I don't think it is clear that the origin of physical laws is one of them.

Incidentally, I think when people talk loosely about physical laws, they are referring to the values of the constants associated with, e.g, gravity rather than things like conservation laws (which are indeed consequences of symmetry).

"(eg. we may find enough about electrons to kill off the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple - which only exists because we don't know enough)"

The interpretation that Heisenberg reflects the nature of reality rather than the limits of our knowledge is looking pretty good, actually. Electrons really don't have definite values of position and momentum at the same time - "No hidden variables" (I think Bell's theorem is a good example of something posed with the notion that it could never be checked, which was later checked.)

Turning to the 'meta' debate, my theory is that people who approach science through evolution are used to a debate where the non-creationists hold all the cards. When it comes to the origin of the laws of the universe, there is not yet a convincing scientific account or even a consensus about what the problems are or might be. In a sense, the cards haven't been dealt yet. As yet there is no need to invoke a creator, but there is no nailed down account without a creator either. This situation is psychologically difficult for people emotionally committed to the non-existence of a God, which tends to force them into denying the possibility of the problem being investigated. If someone says to me "God did it", I can't right now present a wrapped up answer to counter them with (though there is no requirement that they be correct). "It can't be investigated" is equally unfounded I think, but also might be true. The two seem to me to be equivalent ways of sweeping the problem (if there is one) away.

It might be that if we develop theories to account for the constants of the universe they might have other consequences that could be checked, for instance. Saying that the problem is forever beyond the reach of science is very premature IMHO.

No offense is intended, and I don't have anyone in particular in mind writing this.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>