Does the universe even want to be explained.

cgaWolf

New member
Apr 16, 2009
125
0
0
Eternal Taros said:
Yes I agree that it was a bad example.
Even with your new example, question that remains is, why?
Why does observation alter the results?
The second i can answer that a) I'll let you know b) i'll collect my nobel prize :D


We are detecting emitted photons, something that does not in any way effect the system.
That very result is unexpected and completely nonsensical.
I don't think that its a vocabulary issue.
Our lack of adequate vocabulary has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to understand something.
We can always imagine things we have no vocabulary to describe.
While we can imagine things we lack the words to describe, we find it very hard to describe something when lacking the appropriate vocabulary, and by vocabulary i don't only mean natural language, but also the math, symbols & logic to frame to concepts and questions. To me it does boil down to a problem of vocabulary, but by that i mean far more than the words the two of us use to communicate. In my head, i have no problem uniting the duality of light :p

So when you say the problem lies in trying to understand with out limited tools, our limited perspective, and our limited logic - i agree. That's the vocabulary problem i was talking about :)
 

AdmiralMemo

LoadingReadyRunner
Legacy
Dec 15, 2008
647
0
21
My theory is that the universe is too complicated for humans to understand with our current level of intelligence. If and when we hit the technological singularity, then, we might be getting somewhere. I say we need to be a Type 1 or 2 civilization on the Kardashev Scale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale] before we'll be able to understand the universe.
 

T.D.

New member
Feb 9, 2011
80
0
0
Although i think that the universe works by set rules such that a being like Laplace's Demon could know everything. As we are part of the universe we can't know it completely as we will always effect the result merely by observation. Observation does make a difference as it effects the light and other particles that could effect the result get changed by bouncing around our observational instruments, which then in turn return to the observed particle and changes its nature differently than if it hadn't been observed. But we can't see the change as we can only have one of the two options observed and unobserved.
 

DFish

New member
Aug 8, 2008
73
0
0
Your point seems to be that regardless of how much of the universe we understand (or seem to) there will always be things outside our understanding. You conclude from this that the universe is making things up as we progress.

This is incorrect logic, akin to "Until I climbed that hill, there was no land on the other side of it."

To continue the metaphor, when exploring an unknown land you will always increase the perimeter of the area you have explored. This does not change the land, or make it more complex, it merely gives you more possible places to explore next.

Similarly, making a discovery in science will always yield more questions: you take the new knowledge and wonder what you can do with it. That does not mean that the universe made up new things to question, just that you made up more questions.

Of course, this presupposes that there is not an eventual limit to knowledge. Suffice it to say that we aren't there yet if there is one :)


PS: Thinking the universe is conscious - or is affected by consciousness - is a common symptom of misunderstanding quantum mechanics. Certainly there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Please do remember that Schrodinger's Cat was originally a description of the ridiculous nature of the quantum-mechanical "observation" idea - research "Wigner's friend" for a simple extension of this.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
Then why did it show itself? I am in no way satisfied with a little flirt and a tease, I want to see, experience and know ALL of it.
 

HardkorSB

New member
Mar 18, 2010
1,477
0
0
Thetwistedendgame said:
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.
Does my sandwich want to be eaten?
The speed of light is/was thought to be the fastest possible speed because we didn't come across anything faster...yet. The cat thing is just a mind game. I can lock a cat in a box for 6 months and I'm 100 %certain that it will be dead. There will be no "dead and alive at the same time", it will just be dead.
Even if the universe is sentient, how do you know that it knows about us? Our planet would be just like a cell in an organism. Do you even bother with "explaining yourself" to your cells? No. Why would you, even if you could? Planets and solar systems disappear all the time (probably appear as well, I don't know, I don't study that stuff), just like cells in your body. Why would you care about a specific cell, even if it was your brain cell? One cell more or less, it doesn't make any difference. Plus, the communication would be impossible, given the "cosmic" difference in size and probably intelligence as well.
 

Aidinthel

Occasional Gentleman
Apr 3, 2010
1,743
0
0
The universe is not sentient; merely extremely complicated. This is to be expected, as it is, after all, the universe.