Does the universe even want to be explained.

[Thetwistedendgame]

Now, with all the things going on about particles going faster then light(thought to be impossible) and theories like Schrodinger's cat to confuse us even more, I have concluded that the Universe is sentient and will not and cannot, for some reason, let itself be fully explained. My theory is that for every mystery we solve will be another confusing situation, and it will carry on like a match of ping pong for the rest of all eternity, until the Universe decides to cheat and wipe us off itself like a human wipes an ant off of his knee. Thoughts, arguments, and opinions.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Well, hold the phone for just one second here. Schrodinger's cat is theoretical science, though it does correlate with some verifiable quantum science. And you're right, we've collected a lot of data which would suggest that we have absolutely no idea what is going on. Things like the Observer Effect or some of the Quantum Entanglement experiments which are going on suggest that the basic particles of our universe actually do change their behavior when subjected to a conscious observer. We have absolutely no idea why that is, though personally speaking I would wager that it is not that the universe is trying to prevent us from knowing its secrets, and that it is actually that observation plays a much more important role in the universe than any of us realized.

 

[Heathrow]

I'm one of the sentient bits of universe, and I want to know how I work. So, yes.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Well, hold the phone for just one second here. Schrodinger's cat is theoretical science, though it does correlate with some verifiable quantum science. And you're right, we've collected a lot of data which would suggest that we have absolutely no idea what is going on. Things like the Observer Effect or some of the Quantum Entanglement experiments which are going on suggest that the basic particles of our universe actually do change their behavior when subjected to a conscious observer. We have absolutely no idea why that is, though personally speaking I would wager that it is not that the universe is trying to prevent us from knowing its secrets, and that it is actually that observation plays a much more important role in the universe than any of us realized.

I didn't know that the Schrodinger's cat theory and the Observer effect were not the same thing, although I can understand that since they're basically the oposite thing. I was aware of this effect and that actually looking at something can influence it, as I've read that dark matter apparently disappears when observed. But you said that the Universe is trying to prevent us from unraveling it's secrets, but I mean something different. My theory is that the Universe itself is making up laws as it goes, and for every thing we explain, something else will be created to fill up it's space. This all ties back to the Observer Effect, meaning that any observation we explain will leave a spot to be filled in with another observation that we have to explain, until there is nothing left and the universe has no choice but to make us cease to exist.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Everything makes sense at some level, we just haven't reached it yet. We may never ever reach it, just by the virtue of existing inside the same system we are trying to observe. But the answers ARE there, somewhere.

 

[BlackStar42]

DAMN. HE KNOWS. ATTEMPTING DIVERSIONARY TACTIC.

Oh don't be silly! Of course the Universe isn't conscious/sentient/evil!

 

[Something Amyss]

The mice are changing the parameters as part of their experiment. The Universe isn't doing anything.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Everything makes sense at some level, we just haven't reached it yet. We may never ever reach it, just by the virtue of existing inside the same system we are trying to observe. But the answers ARE there, somewhere.

Everything that exists NOW can be explained, but, in my theory, the Universe makes things up as it goes, meaning that, like I said in a reply before, every answer will lead to a new question being created. Again counting on Schrodinger's Cat that everything makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time, until we can make sense of it.

 

[Dr Jones]

Should we discuss wether the universe wants to be explained?
I don't think the universe is sentient at all. Makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. Even the thought that the universe is sentient creates more questions.

 

[shadu957]

Things are complicated, therefore the universe is sentient and does not want to be explained.

This isn't a theory. It's barely a hypothesis, there's almost nothing connecting the premise and the conclusion.

This is exactly what I thought when I saw this, thank you for saying it for me

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

DAMN. HE KNOWS. ATTEMPTING DIVERSIONARY TACTIC.

Oh don't be silly! Of course the Universe isn't conscious/sentient/evil!

Since you can't prove that the Universe is sentient nor not, I conclude that it is both until we observe it. Although I agree that everything in my theory is unlikely since the whole thing is based on the idea of: Since we don't know, you don't know if you're right. I know that it's ignorant, but due to recent behaviours of physics I can at least go ahead and try to say that it does make up laws as it goes, as the expectations of an observation can actually influence the end results of the observation. Apparently.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Although I conclude from a few reactions that a sentient universe is a bit farfetched, I will stay by my theory that for every answer will come a new question to take the old ones place. Until it is disproved by a combination of cynics, critics, and people who actually know what they're talking about(Calling out to all sensemakers!!!)

 

[Heronblade]

Everything makes sense at some level, we just haven't reached it yet. We may never ever reach it, just by the virtue of existing inside the same system we are trying to observe. But the answers ARE there, somewhere.

Everything that exists NOW can be explained, but, in my theory, the Universe makes things up as it goes, meaning that, like I said in a reply before, every answer will lead to a new question being created. Again counting on Schrodinger's Cat that everything makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time, until we can make sense of it.

If the universe itself had a personality and will of its own, I somehow doubt that the personality in question would be reminiscent of the three stooges.

The fact that the universe is a difficult machine to understand doesn't mean there is a purpose behind those twists and turns. Each new set of questions and answers we come across have an order to them, a nature that falls in line with other aspects of reality.

We might bring this up again if we find something truly incredulous, like if we were to find the Higgs-Boson particle, only to discover that every friday it emits a sine wave to the tune of a particular Rick Astley song.

Now I kind of want to see that happen, just to see the look on the researchers face when they discover that they were rickrolled by god.

 

[orangeapples]

(pssst, the universe, the human race is starting to catch on.)

Oh, they've only got a year to live anyway? Okay then.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Everything makes sense at some level, we just haven't reached it yet. We may never ever reach it, just by the virtue of existing inside the same system we are trying to observe. But the answers ARE there, somewhere.

Everything that exists NOW can be explained, but, in my theory, the Universe makes things up as it goes, meaning that, like I said in a reply before, every answer will lead to a new question being created. Again counting on Schrodinger's Cat that everything makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time, until we can make sense of it.

If the universe itself had a personality and will of its own, I somehow doubt that the personality in question would be reminiscent of the three stooges.

The fact that the universe is a difficult machine to understand doesn't mean there is a purpose behind those twists and turns. Each new set of questions and answers we come across have an order to them, a nature that falls in line with other aspects of reality.

We might bring this up again if we find something truly incredulous, like if we were to find the Higgs-Boson particle, only to discover that every friday it emits a sine wave to the tune of a particular Rick Astley song.

Now I kind of want to see that happen, just to see the look on the researchers face when they discover that they were rickrolled by god.

I'm not suggesting that the new questions are at total random, and that the the Universe knows what it is doing, and following a pattern of questions like you said. The only thing I'm saying is that that pattern is happening on purpose. That the Universe has thought this out to the finest detail, all to make us not notice that it is trying to keep us busy.

 

[Lizardon]

Well yes it's complicated and confusing, but it's not impossible. Phenomenon have been observed that don't agree with our current understanding and models, so we adjust the models and improve our understanding. As our methods of collecting and recording data evolve, so will our understanding of why things happen. One day we will have the answers, just not in the foreseeable future.

Also I'm surprised no one has quoted Douglas Adam yet
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Well yes it's complicated and confusing, but it's not impossible. Phenomenon have been observed that don't agree with our current understanding and models, so we adjust the models and improve our understanding. As our methods of collecting and recording data evolve, so will our understanding of why things happen. One day we will have the answers, just not in the foreseeable future.

Also I'm surprised no one has quoted Douglas Adam yet
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

I OVERLOOKED THAT ONE! It appears my theory has already been used. Oh well, of to plot another plan to look smart! Happy there was another Hitchikers fan to let me see the light!

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Well, hold the phone for just one second here. Schrodinger's cat is theoretical science, though it does correlate with some verifiable quantum science. And you're right, we've collected a lot of data which would suggest that we have absolutely no idea what is going on. Things like the Observer Effect or some of the Quantum Entanglement experiments which are going on suggest that the basic particles of our universe actually do change their behavior when subjected to a conscious observer. We have absolutely no idea why that is, though personally speaking I would wager that it is not that the universe is trying to prevent us from knowing its secrets, and that it is actually that observation plays a much more important role in the universe than any of us realized.

I didn't know that the Schrodinger's cat theory and the Observer effect were not the same thing, although I can understand that since they're basically the oposite thing. I was aware of this effect and that actually looking at something can influence it, as I've read that dark matter apparently disappears when observed. But you said that the Universe is trying to prevent us from unraveling it's secrets, but I mean something different. My theory is that the Universe itself is making up laws as it goes, and for every thing we explain, something else will be created to fill up it's space. This all ties back to the Observer Effect, meaning that any observation we explain will leave a spot to be filled in with another observation that we have to explain, until there is nothing left and the universe has no choice but to make us cease to exist.

Yeah, the Observer Effect is associated with the Double Slit Experiment. Schroedinger's cat, on the other hand, is really more of a metaphorical tool. We haven't run an actual experiment which verifies that while it's in the box the cat is in a simultaneous state of being dead and alive.

I would still disagree with that idea, though perhaps its closer to my own. My contention would be that the universe exists as we perceive it because we perceive it. Quantum science then is just barely beginning to understand the actual mechanisms by which the universe forms in response to conscious observation. I would never say that the universe has an active interest in trying to prevent itself from being explained though, but instead that its basic mechanics are just way more complex than previously realized, and so coming from our position of ignorance it might feel that way.

 

[cgaWolf]

Thoughts, arguments, and opinions.

Here's the one truth about nature (and thus the universe) that seems very hard to grasp, for a variety of religious people, conspiracy nuts, but even many advocates of science and rationality: nature is indifferent. It's not harsh, or violent, or nice, or lucky, or trying anything, or going anywhere - it simply is.

One of the other ideas one needs to understand is that an observer is limited by his viewpoint and capabilities; so any attempt we make at explaining or even understanding the universe often comes with models that obviously need to be understandable by humans via a variety of user interfaces (-> math); and which often are limited in scope to the area they were looked at.
A very good example of that is classic mechanic laws, which are brilliant in explaining to a very high accuracy what we see in everyday life; but completely fail to work on very large or very small scales - that doesn't mean the model is wrong, that simply means there are limits to it.
While there might be a model that encompasses all three scales, it would probably make it very hard to work on the one scale you're currently interested in, and thus needlessly overcomplicate things. When trying to predict a behavior (which ultimately is the test of your theory), or fix a problem, it's a waste of resources and time to solve that problem on a scale no one is concerned by.

Thirdly, while we like categories and labels and try to fit the natural world into boxes we can understand & sort; nature really isn't all that easy to fit into discrete categories - that however is a problem due to how we think, and how we order our toughts, not an attempt of nature to escape explanation.

Our lack of understanding does not imply there's a will opposing us, do not make the error of insinuating an unnecessary agent where it is not required, especially not when your attempts to comprehend certain things already fail on models that are second nature to a large number of people specialized in a field you know next to nothing about.
There's actually very little to suggest that all laws are in place already, however the more we understand & correct our science, the more we understand why, how & where previous models had their limits. That suggests that our understanding of natural laws needs to catch up, long before we start insinuating that the laws are changing or even simply appearing as we get closer to defining them. And let's not forget that our "laws" are simply models - the universe doesn't follow them, it's simply how we explain how a part of nature works under a defined set of conditions, and how we attempt to predict an outcome to experiments.
A ton of those laws are actually bad, and known to be bad, yet are good enough to lead to technological implementations. "Close enough" is how we've been playing it for the past few hundred years

Lastly - at least for this post - let's not forget three key concepts:
- A hypothesis isn't some random idea someone had one while sitting on the porcelain throne (well, rarely at least). It's the hardest and most tested concept we know in science. The one step after the hypothesis is "fact", and those make for very dull experiments.
- Proof in science is a very different concept than proof in law. Proof in law required something to be sufficiently plausible; proof in science requires logical certainty within the parameters. Once something is proven (and the proof is correct), it won't change anymore, ever. Sure, later on it might be shown that under other parameters it doesn't apply, or that the proof was incorrect; but scientific proof is a very final concept within the parameters where it is valid.
- Lastly, Science is wrong and inaccurate Older scientific concepts & theories being overturned or improved is not a weakness, it's how science is done. Science is not a thing, it's a verb, and it's best understood as the activity of "continually trying to improve our understanding of the natural world".

 

[cgaWolf]

As a sidenote:

Since you can't prove that the Universe is sentient nor not, I conclude that it is both until we observe it. Although I agree that everything in my theory is unlikely since the whole thing is based on the idea of: Since we don't know, you don't know if you're right.

You've just perfectly demonstrated one of the problems i was speaking about in my previous post. A random thought experiment (which is what you just had) and some semantic trickery do not make science. If you claim sentience, you'd need data to support that claim ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), not simply confronting some other random person with "you can't prove that i'm wrong, therefore i'm right".

Especially regarding sentience we're on very difficult territory - life as we understand it requires information in the form of DNA or RNA. Sentient life - as we know it - requires central nervous systems. While there may be (sentient) life out there that doesn't require it, simply thinking of the concept does not make it so. It makes for entertaining pseudophilosophical internet arguments, but it's not science.

As a counterpoint to your thought-experiment however: Insinuating sentience in a body in which information from one location cannot possibly reach the location on the opposite end within the timeframe of the existence of said body, is ludicrous. And that's if we accept the hypothesis that the universe isn't infinite to begin with, something far from proven.


One thing you said though was very true: "Everything that exists NOW can be explained, but, in my theory, the Universe makes things up as it goes, meaning that, like I said in a reply before, every answer will lead to a new question being created"...

Well, not the "everything that exists now can be explained" part, that's just rubbish; but that every answer will lead to news questions. There's a metaphor for how science works:

A man goes home at night, and sees a guy under a streetlight looking for something.
- "Dear Sir," he says, "are you looking for something?"
- "Yes, yes, i am. I lost my keys somewhere over there, and am looking for them."
- "But if you lost them over there, why are you looking for them here under the lamp?"
- "Because here there's light, and i can see."

We don't know whether the amount of questions to be asked is finite - we can only look for more answers close to where we found the last ones. I, for one, hope we never have to stop asking for having exhausted all the questions - that would be very depressing. The fact that more questions pop up when we solved one of them, is wonderful and inspiring.