Does the universe even want to be explained.

[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.

 

[sage42]

Of course the universe can't be figured out, it's already been figured out once and was replaced by what we have now.

Seriously though, the universe is a complicated thing. I doubt we'll ever figure it out.

 

[Zipa]

Wow talk about hubris, the more likely theory is that our understanding of the universe is pitiful. There was a time when humanity believed that the sun moved around the Earth but no longer as our understanding of astronomy has gotten better.

 

[thirion1850]

Yes, yes it does. Progress and evolution is survival, therefor we require said progress of exploration and invention of the universe around us in order to advance as a species and survive. This is our way of essentially evolving every day as sentient beings. To stagnate and accept the world as it is would be ludicrous as stagnation is one of the essentials for death.

And besides, I want my fucking jetpack already. And knowing the world will give it to me.

 

[Belaam]

To paraphrase: "I don't understand advanced science, therefore the universe is sentient and wants me to know my place as inferior"?!

What? Look, I don't even remotely claim advanced scientific knowledge. I've read some popular science writing (Hawking, Dawkins and some softer sciences like Diamond) and know enough to know that a human lifetime is not long enough to understand even a fraction of the stuff that goes on in the universe. In a couple hundred years of serious study, we haven't figured out all kinds of stuff about a 13 billion year old universe, but we're figured out more fields of study than any one person could ever hope to master.

But nothing in that indicates that the universe is in any way sentient. There often seems to be a view that "there are things we don't know in science, therefore anything could be true", but that is largely B.S. I do not understand quantum mechanics... but I know enough to know that it doesn't mean homeopathy is a viable system of healthcare, that aura massage will do anything for me beyond a placebo effect, or that nuclear powered lasers could blast our enemies from space in the 80s.

Though one can say there are two options, 1) that the universe is as it appears and 2) that there is a vast universal intelligence out there that has carefully kept itself hidden, those ideas do not carry equal weight. One of them is pure fantasy.

 

[cgaWolf]

I don't know why you wasted a wall of text on this. I can bet the OP will never read it. Or give any thought about it, at least.

One minor correction though. A hypothesis can be some idea someone had while sitting on the toilet. After whatever the object of said idea was experimented upon and proven correct, however, it becomes a theory, which is the form of scientific knowledge that generally only gets tweaked later on to accommodate newer ones.

One thing to note is that fact describes an observation, while a theory provides the explanation for whatever was observed. E.g. evolution is a fact - it describes the slowly but surely increasing general complexity of life; the theory of evolution by natural selection only explains why that happens. I'm going off-track a little bit here, but that's one reason to slap somebody upside the head whenever they say evolution isn't a fact.

I like wall of texting

That said, i did mention a hypothesis could come - rarely - while sitting on the toilet. I simply wanted to illustrate that random ideas one has do not automatically qualify as scientific hypotheses, especially not when disregarding established knowledge in any given area. That doesn't disqualify all random ideas or sudden observations of course - after all the most important expression in science isn't "Eureka" but "huh?".

Regarding evolution vs. theory of evolution, i fully agree, including that denying facts is a valid reason to slap someone That said, the theory is attempting to explain it is fairly solid, but again simply a model - it may have its faults, but so far it hasn't failed to explain how evolution happens. Before we get an ID/Creationist troll piping up: i said it hasn't failed to explain "how" it happens - the theory doesn't claim to explain the "why", that's in the realm of philosophy.

How can observation alter the effects of an experiment?

Easily ^^
As an example: When you measure the pressure of your tires, you do so by inserting a small needle/valve system, releasing a bit of air from the tire so it can hit the pressure sensor. Thus, to know what pressure is in the tire, by necessity you've changed the pressure inside it. Only by a very small amount - and one normally too small to negatively affect vehicle security - but you've changed it. There's dozen's of examples of the Observer Effect across all fields of science & technology - and at times the change isn't irrelevant.



PS: While we're on the topic of science & science education: There are two brilliant books very much worth reading - one is an explanation of a ton of science and how it works, the other an inspiring defense of informed rationality. Neither come with the boring preaching that's so often infused in Hitchens or Dawkins books, and both do very well in positively engaging readers even if you don't have prior scientific education. The worst that can be said about both books is that they're a bit old, and thus don't cover the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the past decade; butt's x-mas soon, might as well treat yourself with some quality reading material:

Asimov's New Guide to Science
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Science-Penguin-Press/dp/0140172130/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323369479&sr=8-1-fkmr1

Sagan's The Demon Haunted World
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323369464&sr=8-1

enjoy

 

[Smooth Operator]

You universe clearly doesn't, great thing about imagination it conjures up whatever we want.

The actual universe however is an infinite mystery, we can never know all of it only know more of it.

 

[Smallells]

I severely doubt the Universe is sentient. I think things happen because things happen. Maybe we will find out the meaning of the universe, or realise that there is absolutely no reason for the universe. Maybe one day, the Large Hadron Collider will finally work, and we'll create the elusive Higgs Boson, and it turns out that we'll be able to create our own planets, solar systems and perhaps even universes!

It's my belief that on that day, reality will collapse, and a big set of letters will appear that say:

LEVEL FIVE!

 

[JediMB]

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 more importantly, Schrödinger's Cat was satire.

Erwin Schrödinger used the scenario to criticize those who would apply quantum mechanics to everyday objects.

 

[Doclector]

I find it rather exciting. The rules of our known reality are being rewritten.

 

[thiosk]

Well, luckily for you, the faster than light particles were shown to in fact be slower than light, and clocked at just the right speed. Had to do with relativity and frames of reference that were not taken into account.

We're sorting it out. And theres a lot more to sort out than we thought, because the universe isn't just mind bogglingly, its astoundingly unbelievably mind boggingly big. So yeah, we can figure it out, and we will-- it will just take a little longer than you might think.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go try to make mercury nanoparticles explode. That should help sort something out. Or at least be a lot of fun.

 

[Naeo]

Oh boy.

This is a very old and incredibly flawed argument. "I do not understand, therefore, it is ineffable." Just because you don't understand how the universe works, or just because humanity does not understand every single bit and piece of it, does not mean that the universe is constantly making up new things for us to discover just for the sake of staying one step ahead of us. Every single bit of science to date that has been widely accepted by the academic communities gives no reason to believe anything but that the universe is mathematically consistent. Yes, some old paradigms get thrown out in light of new ones, but in many cases over the last few hundred years, both paradigms tend to be mathematically rigorous. Back to the main point, though. You're basically saying that because we're constantly discovering new things the universe must constantly be creating new things for us to discover, as I read your post. This is frankly arrogant bullshit, since it assumes that 1) we are at any given point in possession of the totality of available knowledge, so any addition to that knowledge requires creation of new physical/natural phenomena, and 2) that the universe specifically gives a damn about humanity. To put our incredible insignificance into perspective: the entire Milky Way Galaxy could one day just up and explode, destroying everything in a five-hundred-lightyear radius. The universe wouldn't even blink (figuratively), because the observable universe alone is about fourteen billion lightyears across (I've read somewhere, though I cannot recall where, that the actual universe is about ten to twelve times farther across).

Also, under the interpretation that new things are being created for us to discover, is a book constantly in the act of creation, as we read it, because otherwise we would have read the whole book? Is a painting or a song constantly inventing new parts of itself so when we go back and experience it again later we can pick up on something new? Of course not.

The universe is mathematically consistent, by almost every single observation we have made and almost every accepted scientific explanation of it. We do not know everything at any given time, and so we are discovering things that were already there but which we did not know before. There's no magic or sentience of the universe in that. Does this necessarily preclude a sentient universe? No. But in no possible way could it be used to argue in favor of one. There is simply no possible logical connection between "the universe is complex and we are constantly increasing our understanding of it" and "the universe is a sentient entity constantly creating new things for us to discover".

Yes, there is large-scale structure to the universe. Yes, there are things we cannot explain. Yes, we are constantly discovering new and strange things about the universe. That doesn't mean necessitate any higher intelligence or higher form of existence. The universe is weird in a lot of ways, but it's weirdness is consistent.

The sentience of the universe is certainly an interesting idea and certainly good fodder for philosophical discussion, but frankly, such an assertion has no right in trying to pass as scientific.

 

[everythingbeeps]

By the time we're advanced enough to "understand" the universe (and we're a very long way from that), we'll be far beyond even caring anymore.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Wow talk about hubris, the more likely theory is that our understanding of the universe is pitiful. There was a time when humanity believed that the sun moved around the Earth but no longer as our understanding of astronomy has gotten better.

And now that mystery about the suns orbit has been replaced with the question of why the hell is the universe expanding?

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".

I don't know why you wasted a wall of text on this. I can bet the OP will never read it. Or give any thought about it, at least.

One minor correction though. A hypothesis can be some idea someone had while sitting on the toilet. After whatever the object of said idea was experimented upon and proven correct, however, it becomes a theory, which is the form of scientific knowledge that generally only gets tweaked later on to accommodate newer ones.

One thing to note is that fact describes an observation, while a theory provides the explanation for whatever was observed. E.g. evolution is a fact - it describes the slowly but surely increasing general complexity of life; the theory of evolution by natural selection only explains why that happens. I'm going off-track a little bit here, but that's one reason to slap somebody upside the head whenever they say evolution isn't a fact.

I uh... Actually created this theory on the toilet... And he's putting up this wall of text for me, not to be high and mighty. And I thank him for it. There are people that like you for the right reasons, people that like you for the wrong reasons, people who hate you for the wrong reasons, and people who hate you for the right reasons. Some say you should fear the latter. I say you should listen to their advice. Thanks to everyone posting here I got a better idea of how my theory works. I agree that a completely sentient Universe is ridiculous, but I'll still stay with it that, even though we can explain every single thing about the Universe, there will always be a new question that comes to life after we kill one. There will be no end to the questions of life. And it will be fun. And it would be challenging. And so, so, so, human to figure them all out!

 

[Woodsey]

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

They could at least throw a tea party to calm us all down.

OT: No. (As in, no, that's a really stupid idea, not no it doesn't want to be explained.)

 

[Talshere]

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.

Just because you dont understand something does not make it magic, likewise, just because someone says something you dont understand, doesn't make it intelligent. Indeed people will tell you they hear the wind whisper, a definition which could actually be true in the correct context, yet this does not make the wind sentient. Simply that we lack the means to describe the wind. Likewise, the universe is vast beyond imagining, fill with wonders that within the lifetimes of some, could simply not be. We cannot describe, or explain, something we cannot imagine