Does the universe even want to be explained.

[dvd_72]

Well then, even if that is true, let's see who wins ey? Bring it on sentient universe!

On a sirious note, I'm fairly certain that the universe works through well defined rules and laws, even if some(read: ALL THE QUANTUM MECHANICS!) of them do allow for a range of uncertainty we are usually able to figure out the (at least in a purely mathematical sense) the "shape" of these rules as you will. The problem lies in the fact that these events are happening on sutch a small (or huge) scale that it is incredibally difficult for the mind to comprehend.

That wont ever stop us from trying. At least I hope it wont. It's our inquisitive nature, our need to know, that has opened the door to these bizzare and wonderfull rules that challange our understanding of the universe and I think I've forgotten where I was going with this post. Oh well.

 

[DarthFennec]

Well it is true that we continue to find weird-ass shit as we continue to dig deeper. But that's how it's always been, and we continue to sort it out eventually. I don't think there will ever be anything that science can't eventually fully explain.

 

[McMullen]

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.

That "Observer Effect" video is a clip from "What the Bleep do We Know?", which is a movie put out by a new-age religious movement that bases itself on pseudoscience. Learning physics from them is like getting a chemistry lesson from a snake-oil salesman.

OT: I can't rule out the possibility that the universe is sentient, but I don't think it needs to be, so I'm betting it isn't. My suspicion is that the universe, like so many things in it, has fractal complexity. That is, every set of rules that describes any scale of the universe accurately will have some specific set of conditions where it breaks down and must be described by a more complex set of rules which will itself have specific conditions that cause it to break down, and so on into infinite complexity.

 

[similar.squirrel]

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

That's the smartest post I've read here in the past year. Bravo.

 

[Batou667]

I have concluded that the Universe is sentient

...because it's big, and mysterious, and anything that's a perceived higher power than ourselves ought to be anthropmorphised and paid homage to, right?

Anyway, Mr Universe can object to us understanding Him all He wants. Mr Universe can, coincidentally, go whistle. Prodding and probing the universe is in the human nature - and by gum, we willunderstand it one day, or die trying.

 

[huser]

That's not a theory. Gravity as it's understood by us is a theory. It needs to not only be consistent with all current knowledge, it needs to make verifiable predictions that are then...well verified.

Without wanting to sabotage your actual point (which is quite correct): gravitation isn't a theory, it's a fact, more specifically the fact that two bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.
As to our theories of gravity, there's several, two of them currently in use, depending on what exactly you're looking at. One of them is derived from the general theory of relativity, the other one ofc Newtons law of universal gravitation.

Very much so, hence why I said "gravity as it's understood by us." Perhaps "explained" might have been the more accurate wording, but the theory would lie in how we seek to describe, quantify and explain the existence of gravity (ie our understanding of it), not the simple fact it exists. And while there ARE two theories, it would seem the Einsteinian model would be the more accurate one, as (among other things) the Newtonian model has no explanation for why light would be affected by gravity.

 

[Mau95]

Theyre actually working on a computer to explain more stuff and predict the future of the human race (global warming, migration, economy and all that). Kinda like that one from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Deepthought, which was actually Earth.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

let me ask you a question then . if the universe(assuming it is alive sentient and wants to hide all its cool secrets and space chicks) didn't want us to know its secrets why would it give us sentient in the first place to question it?

It doesn't want to hide all it's secrets. Just make sure we never run out of them. And for everyone else who has just jumped to this religious satire about just how dumb I am, I say you're to lazy to read my other posts. for everyone who gave GOOD arguments against my theory(It still is god[PROFANITY]it!), good job. Oh and

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.

That "Observer Effect" video is a clip from "What the Bleep do We Know?", which is a movie put out by a new-age religious movement that bases itself on pseudoscience. Learning physics from them is like getting a chemistry lesson from a snake-oil salesman.

OT: I can't rule out the possibility that the universe is sentient, but I don't think it needs to be, so I'm betting it isn't. My suspicion is that the universe, like so many things in it, has fractal complexity. That is, every set of rules that describes any scale of the universe accurately will have some specific set of conditions where it breaks down and must be described by a more complex set of rules which will itself have specific conditions that cause it to break down, and so on into infinite complexity.

this. I'm not literaly meaning that the universe is sentient, just that it has a knack of making questions out of answers.

 

[Daffy F]

The one and only thing that seems to defy explanation in the universe (at least on the macro scale, not going into all the crazy things going on at the quantum level ^_^) is what caused the big bang. There is currently pretty much no theory or way to explain it that doesn't involve analogies. One cool effect of it, however, is we can look into the depths of space (roughly 13.7 billion light years away) we can witness the early universe! Fascinating!

 

[Wackymon]

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

I say it is unexplainable.

 

[cgaWolf]

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

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

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]

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.

 

[Heathrow]

[...]

Those are yams.

 

[T.D.]

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]

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.

 

[Wackymon]

[...]

Those are yams.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/25/f1eb1ea9-81df-4694-9013-22a83f97f9b4.jpg
Take that internet.

 

[somonels]

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.

 

[richd213]

Ockham's razor is a wonderful thing. Try to use it more often.

 

[HardkorSB]

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]

The universe is not sentient; merely extremely complicated. This is to be expected, as it is, after all, the universe.