7 of 8
7
What kind of universe do we need to live in for induction to work?
Posted: 02 December 2011 03:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6191
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 01 December 2011 11:39 PM
StephenLawrence - 01 December 2011 12:29 PM

For most practical purposes I agree.

But the macro world is indeterministic unless the quantum effects cancel each other out completely.

Free will is practical. And don’t forget: chance processes are an obstruction of free will. Determinism is a necessary basis for free will.

So even if some quantum fluctuations make it into the classical world (i.e. they do not cancel out completely) they are not relevant for free will, but disturb free will.

I’m not asking in relation to free will GdB.

Free will is the easy bit. grin

But now we are far away from induction…

Of course, I’ve joined in the conversation on quantum indeterminism to see if I can understand it and you better.

Stephen

[ Edited: 02 December 2011 03:38 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2011 04:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 01 December 2011 11:29 PM
Write4U - 01 December 2011 04:49 PM

But what if the mountain is irrelevant, and your walk around consists of disappearing one one side and reappearing on the other, and no one can tell if you went around, over, or through the mountain?

Same. It is easy to see based on the law of conservation of energy. Otherwise you would have found a way to create energy from nothing, or destroy it without anything left.

One last question:
As I understand it, energy IS being created and energy IS being destroyed all the time. Is it possible that when a state of energy is destroyed or changed in one place,  energy is (must be) created simultaneously in another place?

I understand conservation, but I am lost at the distances this can take plae, i.e. “entanglement” @ faster than SOL and energetic “strings” which appear and disappear as little vibrations creating a “foamy” spacetime fabric at the Planck scale.

Not being a scientist, I hope that my musings (right or wrong) can be considered as attemps at induction or deduction in a most rudimentary form.

[ Edited: 02 December 2011 04:07 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2011 01:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4572
Joined  2007-08-31
Write4U - 02 December 2011 04:01 AM

One last question:
As I understand it, energy IS being created and energy IS being destroyed all the time. Is it possible that when a state of energy is destroyed or changed in one place,  energy is (must be) created simultaneously in another place?

No. That would mean instantaneous communication, which does not exist.

Write4U - 02 December 2011 04:01 AM

I understand conservation, but I am lost at the distances this can take plae, i.e. “entanglement” @ faster than SOL and energetic “strings” which appear and disappear as little vibrations creating a “foamy” spacetime fabric at the Planck scale.

In entanglement no energy or information is passed through instantaneous.Short fluctuations of energy are possible locally (uncertainty principle).

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2011 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 03 December 2011 01:24 AM

In entanglement no energy or information is passed through instantaneous.Short fluctuations of energy are possible locally (uncertainty principle).

What is information? From the wiki on information

As a property in physics

In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well-defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an “entangled” relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

In entanglement, where particles can interact irrespective of their separation or the SOL is there any information transferred between them even though we cannot observe it given that information cannot travel faster than light?

And what is energy? From the wiki on energy

The total energy contained in an object is identified with its mass, and energy (like mass), cannot be created or destroyed. When matter (ordinary material particles) is changed into energy (such as energy of motion, or into radiation), the mass of the system does not change through the transformation process.

Since energy and mass are conserved, what about information?

From this paper HERE

From the introduction:

Let us begin with the assumption that there may exist a Conservation of Total Information ’law’ for the entire universe. This means that the total information content in the current epoch is the same as that in the early universe regardless of the limitations on what we observe as the ’visible’ forms it takes. The motivation for this is based in the idea of conservation of total mass-energy for the universe regardless of the forms matter takes during the reconfiguration processes of matter within the framework of an expanding vacuum filled with growing quantum networks

Also, from the wiki on
extreme physical information

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler stated that:

All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe… Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics.

So, information is fundamental in nature, but can only arise when the observer participates. However, any knowledge obtained is provisional and incomplete (cf. Godel, Turing and Heisenberg).

Consequently, what is the implication for induction in such a universe? 

cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2011 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4572
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 03 December 2011 12:32 PM

Consequently, what is the implication for induction in such a universe? 

No idea. You do the thinking. grin

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2011 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2011-06-17
StephenLawrence - 19 November 2011 11:56 AM

Kkwan,

I think the thing to do is pick a candidate for a regularity and then answer why it is more probable that it is a regularity than not?

To have knowledge the probability has to be way over 50/50 but even just getting it to budge a little would be a promising start.

Stephen

I think the regularity argument has to do with the conditions/parameters/information around a CAUSE - ‘like causes have like effects.’ The degree to which you know the parameters is the degree to which your prediction or probability rises. In this sense we discover regularites because certain causal parameters always have certain effects.

We know all the parameters of what water is - H2O. Once you add one more piece of information (its interaction with other things in other contexts) and study the effects of those conditions you are justified to infer that under the same conditions it will have the same effect in the future. The problem grows when the information grows.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2011 11:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 05 December 2011 12:03 PM

No idea. You do the thinking. grin

With no knowledge of 96% of the universe, unknowable quantum vagueness/uncertainty, human mortality, incomplete knowledge and animal faith it is incredible to expect induction to work in the universe for all time. More likely, it will fail at time T when we least expect it to.

Notwithstanding that, it should not deter us from exploring and scientific endeavors.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
VeridicusMaximus - 05 December 2011 12:10 PM

We know all the parameters of what water is - H2O. Once you add one more piece of information (its interaction with other things in other contexts) and study the effects of those conditions you are justified to infer that under the same conditions it will have the same effect in the future. The problem grows when the information grows.

But, “under the same conditions it will have the same effect in the future” is induction. Also, “knowing all the parameters of what water is…” is induction as well. Knowledge is obtained by induction and herein lies the importance of induction to knowing anything. The corollary is, without induction, nothing can be known.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4572
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 05 December 2011 11:55 PM

With no knowledge of 96% of the universe, unknowable quantum vagueness/uncertainty, human mortality, incomplete knowledge and animal faith it is incredible to expect induction to work in the universe for all time. More likely, it will fail at time T when we least expect it to.

Notwithstanding that, it should not deter us from exploring and scientific endeavors.

Why do science and technology do so well then?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 04:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 06 December 2011 02:28 AM

Why do science and technology do so well then?

1. The development of science and technology is quite recent but wrt cosmic time, miniscule.

3. Induction has not failed to work.

3. We are in an epoch and in a portion of the universe where nature’s constants are stable.

From this article HERE

Variation of the fine structure constant across the Universe

One of the most cherished principles in science – the constancy of physics – may not be true, according to research carried out at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Swinburne University of Technology and the University of Cambridge

The universe is possibly infinite:

“The smooth continuous change in alpha may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite.”

It depends on when and where we live:

The laws of Nature you see may depend on your ‘space-time address’ – when and where you happen to live in the Universe.”

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 05:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6191
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 06 December 2011 04:35 AM
GdB - 06 December 2011 02:28 AM

Why do science and technology do so well then?

1. The development of science and technology is quite recent but wrt cosmic time, miniscule.

But we have a great deal of information about what happened billions of years ago stretching right back 13.5 billion years.

How do you explain that?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 06 December 2011 05:04 AM

But we have a great deal of information about what happened billions of years ago stretching right back 13.5 billion years.

How do you explain that?

From this article HERE

The predictions of BB theory:

The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the “cosmic microwave background radiation”, or CMB.

CMB and the conditions of the early universe (by inference):

The CMB radiation was emitted 13.7 billion years ago, only a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, long before stars or galaxies ever existed. Thus, by studying the detailed physical properties of the radiation, we can learn about conditions in the universe on very large scales at very early times, since the radiation we see today has traveled over such a large distance.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6191
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 06 December 2011 08:37 AM

The CMB radiation was emitted 13.7 billion years ago, only a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, long before stars or galaxies ever existed. Thus, by studying the detailed physical properties of the radiation, we can learn about conditions in the universe on very large scales at very early times, since the radiation we see today has traveled over such a large distance.

It seems to me this only works if we can make predictions based on physical laws being constant over the 13.7 billion years and the distance the radiaton has travelled.

And I’ll add deterministic as near as damn it too.

Otherwise the prediction ought to have been that some of this radiation had turned into raining pineapples by now. grin

Stephen

[ Edited: 06 December 2011 10:07 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

Hasn’t it?  Maybe not raining pineapples, but definitely rain and pineapples cheese

[ Edited: 06 December 2011 01:07 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2011 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 06 December 2011 10:04 AM

It seems to me this only works if we can make predictions based on physical laws being constant over the 13.7 billion years and the distance the radiaton has travelled.

That is the assumption of physics and ONLY with that assumption can predictions be made. However, if the fine constant alpha varies wrt time and place, things could be very different.

However, the standard BB theory model has certain problems. From this article
HERE

However, this is not possible given standard Big Bang theory, the age of the Universe, and the finite speed of light.

Introducing inflation to save the standard BB model:

bigbang2.jpg

To resolve the horizon problem, astronomers introduced an inflationary period into the Big Bang model (blue region in figure). This sudden increase in the rate of expansion of the Universe soon after the Big Bang, resolves not only the horizon problem, but also the flatness problem. It has therefore been accepted as part of the current concordance model of cosmology.

Currently, the
Concordance model of cosmology

Currently, the concordance model is the Lambda CDM model (which includes cold dark matter and a cosmological constant). In this model the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and made up of 4% baryonic matter, 23% dark matter and 73% dark energy.

With 23% dark matter and 73% dark energy (96% of the universe) of which we know nothing and with only 4% of which we can know something, things don’t look so simple or deterministic at all.  LOL

OTOH, there is a new model HERE

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

Resolving the problems in cosmology?

Shu writes. “The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.”

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 8
7
 
‹‹ Worldview and Identity      Motivation ››