# The Galaxy Insight: 'The Universe is in Some Deep Sense Tied to Homo Sapiens'



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

This seems to suit my own philosophy. Is this of interest to anyone else? Anyway, it seems to be an interesting channel.

*The Galaxy Insight –“The Universe is in Some Deep Sense Tied to Homo Sapiens”*
Posted on Jun 30, 2020 in Astrophysics, Cosmology, Physics, Science, Universe

“Today I think we are beginning to suspect that man is not a tiny cog that doesn’t really make much difference to the running of the huge machine, but rather that there is a much more intimate tie between man and the universe than we heretofore suspected. The physical world is in some deep sense tied to the human being. Being homo sapiens, we live on an island –the universe–surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance. But, of all obstacles to a thoroughly penetrating account of existence, none looms up more dismayingly than ‘time.’

“Explain time? Not without explaining existence. Explain existence? Not without explaining time. To uncover the deep and hidden connection between time and existence, to close on itself our quartet of questions, is a task for the future.

“Is the very mechanism for the universe to come into being meaningless or unworkable, or both unless the universe is guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and_ observership_ somewhere and for some little time in its history-to-be? The quantum principle shows that there is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past—even in a past so remote that life did not then exist, and shows even more, that ‘observership’ is a prerequisite for any useful version of ‘reality’. The universe is a totality in which what happens ‘now’ gives reality to what happened ‘then,’ perhaps even determines what happened then.”

–Quantum physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who originated a novel approach to the unified field theory and popularized the term black hole. Near the end of his life, in his memoir —_Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam_ — Wheeler suggested that when we finally unravel the secret of the universe, of human existence, we will be astounded by its simplicity.

Sources: -Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam –A Life in Physics ; quoted by Ken Wilber in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists; Scientific American; “Hermann Weyl and the Unity of Knowledge”, American Scientist; Paul Davies, Other Worlds.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Even if the underlying idea held water --and I'm rather of the opinion that it doesn't -- is there any reason why, in all the universe, _our _species would be the one that wasn't just a small cog (which itself is greatly overstating our place in the scheme of things, IMO) but instead is the one to which the universe has an intimate tie?


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa, you seem to be assuming there are other “species” than human beings.  (I don’t think, by “species” in this context, you mean species on Earth including, say, spotted owls and maidenhair ferns.)  Extraterrestrial species remain unknown to us, so, “in all the universe,” we may be it; we *are* it, so far as the evidence shows.  This returns us to Wheeler.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

“Is the very mechanism for the universe to come into being meaningless or unworkable, or both unless the universe is guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and_ observership_ somewhere and for some little time in its history-to-be? The quantum principle shows that there is a sense in which what the observer will do in the future defines what happens in the past—even in a past so remote that life did not then exist, and shows even more, that ‘observership’ is a prerequisite for any useful version of ‘reality’. The universe is a totality in which what happens ‘now’ gives reality to what happened ‘then,’ perhaps even determines what happened then.”

Myself, I wonder what he's smoking. Time travels in one direction and there is no way present events can influence the past, which by definition only exists as images of 'observership' - i.e. as memories. Time travel is a fun exercise of imagination but that's as far as it goes. Making 'reality' depend on 'observership' sounds a lot like Hegelianism (the entire universe is a product of my mind). It's the other way round: reality creates observership, i.e. gives the observer something to observe. And no, the 'now' doesn't give reality to the 'then'. It is the 'then' that gives reality to the 'now'. No egg, no chicken. But the _*current *_existence of the 'now' doesn't depend on the 'then' (which by definition no longer exists).

Scientists need a 101 course in common sense.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 1, 2020)

The double slit experiment was an epiphany for me.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> Ursa, you seem to be assuming there are other “species” than human beings.  (I don’t think, by “species” in this context, you mean species on Earth including, say, spotted owls and maidenhair ferns.)  Extraterrestrial species remain unknown to us, so, “in all the universe,” we may be it; we *are* it, so far as the evidence shows. This returns us to Wheeler.


I think, rather, it is the proponent of the idea that "there is a much more intimate tie between man and the universe than we heretofore suspected" that is making an unsupported and unsupportable assumption here and their assumption is that we are somehow unique (and not just in terms of our own existence, but in a universe-tying way).

We know that the universe is capable of creating an organism that is conscious, because we exist; we do _not_ know of any mechanism by which the universe would be restricted, for the entire length of its existence, to producing just one such organism. So we cannot assume that we are unique in that sense (even if that turned out to be the case in reality). And if we cannot assume that, what is it that makes _our_ conscious nature somehow more fundamental than the conscious nature of another organism? Do we even know enough about our consciousness to make even minor claims about its impact on anything outside our own solar system (where "impact" includes the literal impact of our devices on other bodies orbiting the sun?)


One might make similar arguments, to that of the author of the idea we're discussing, about cats. Why did humans develop crop-based agriculture? Obviously, it is so that cats could eventually live lives of luxury, where they had to do no more than exist in order to be fed, to be comfortable, to be loved and to be worshipped... and, indeed, loved and worhipped not just in spite of their many and various examples of bad behaviour and selfishness, but _because_ of them. And taking this a step further, might one offer the suggestion that "there is a much more intimate tie between the domestic cat and the universe than we heretofore suspected"?


----------



## Elckerlyc (Jul 1, 2020)

How would Wheeler's philosophizing connect with the idea that the universe is a hologram?


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> We know that the universe is capable of creating an organism that is conscious, because we exist; we do _not_ know of any mechanism by which the universe would be restricted, for the entire length of its existence, to producing just one such organism. So we cannot assume that we are unique in that sense (even if that turned out to be the case in reality). And if we cannot assume that, what is it that makes _our_ conscious nature somehow more fundamental than the conscious nature of another organism? Do we even know enough about our consciousness to make even minor claims about its impact on anything outside our own solar system (where "impact" includes the literal impact of our devices on other bodies orbiting the sun?)



I really don't know what to say to this in a way that won't get the post removed. There are a number of assumptions made here that rest on rickety foundations (at best). Namely:

1. All life in the universe arises from natural processes: random organisation of matter with certain external factors that influence that organisation in a certain direction.

2. Intelligence, i.e. consciousness, is a function of biology and arises by the same processes that produce life.

3. Intelligence in man is not radically different from the consciousness in other sentient species. Man's capacity to think and reason is the same in animals, if perhaps a little more developed in humans.

If all this is true then obviously the universe is teeming with life - millions of different species have appeared just on Earth, each through a process of random/conditioned mutation, so clearly the universe is very good at producing living organisms. And plenty of those organisms are 'intelligent'.

But if I question any of these assumptions or examine the facts put forward to support them then....

PS: I'm very fond of cats.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 1, 2020)

To me there is something quite remarkable about the fact that you can simply create a copious volume of hydrogen and helium,
leave it for two stellar generations and have Ford Mustangs and I-phones appear from it.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Astro Pen said:


> To me there is something quite remarkable about the fact that you can simply create a copious volume of hydrogen and helium,
> leave it for two stellar generations and have Ford Mustangs and I-phones appear from it.



'Tis a wonder to behold, entropy notwithstanding.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jul 1, 2020)

The Anthropic Principle.
Strong or weak?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Stephen Palmer said:


> The Anthropic Principle.


Mummy, why is the sky blue?
Because it is, darling.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Mummy, why is the sky blue?
> Because it is, darling.



_If I may correct that:_
Mummy, why is the sky blue?
Because we moved away from Wales darling.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Stephen Palmer said:


> The Anthropic Principle.
> Strong or weak?


It seems a bit of a non-sequitur argument (strong or weak): the universe must be able to produce life because life exists that can observe it.

But we don't know anything about whether life can exist anywhere off our planet (every planet about which we know something in detail demonstrably cannot support life) and how that life came to be. The only thing we can _*prove *_is that planet Earth is suitable to sustain life because life exists on it. Which is a tautology.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Justin Swanton said:


> 1. All life in the universe arises from natural processes: random organisation of matter with certain external factors that influence that organisation in a certain direction.
> 
> 2. Intelligence, i.e. consciousness, is a function of biology and arises by the same processes that produce life.
> 
> 3. Intelligence in man is not radically different from the consciousness in other sentient species. Man's capacity to think and reason is the same in animals, if perhaps a little more developed in humans.



I am not making the assumptions you say I am; indeed, I am arguing _against_ the assumptions being made in the text quoted in the OP.

Regarding *(1)*, you are assuming that I am imposing some sort of limit on the meaning of "natural"; I am not.

Given that, your *(2)* is patently false: I am not assuming any particular process by which consciousness -- I never mentioned intelligence (whatever that might be) -- might arise.

And given that I never mentioned intelligence, (or have been making the assumptions you're _assuming_ I have been), I have not -- and cannot have -- made any assumptions regarding what intelligence does or doesn't mean or what forms it may come in, so *(3)* does not hold water.

But apart from statements *(1)*, *(2)* and *(3)*, and _all_ of the others you have made in your post, you _may_ be correct.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> I am not making the assumptions you say I am; indeed, I am arguing _against_ the assumptions being made in the text quoted in the OP.
> 
> Regarding *(1)*, you are assuming that I am imposing some sort of limit on the meaning of "natural"; I am not.
> 
> ...



That's fine. Apologies if I got you wrong. ✌

Do you want clarify the ground covered by 1 and 2? (forget 3) I'm all ears.

1. The universe creating an organism. Is there any process besides natural selection or its derivatives that could plausibly account for that?

2. The universe creating an organism that is conscious. What is meant by consciousness in humans? Wheeler connects it with knowledge (in opposition to ignorance) and observership. But that obviously isn't a definition. What produces consciousness? Is it a function of biology or is it separate from biology? I reproduced the common understanding of consciousness as any sort of awareness of one's surroundings. I also made intelligence a function of consciousness which seems to be the common understanding of it as well (I think intelligence is radically different from a simple awareness but that's getting off-topic).

3. Sorry. I assumed you attributed consciousness to animals. The bit about the conscious nature of another organism followed by the digression on cats threw me. So OK, we can leave animals out of it.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Our perceptions of the universe are limited to what our human senses can perceive. Our science and x-ray telescopes and colliders etc, are extensions of our human senses.

If our 'homo sapiens' perception of the universe is limited to what our senses can perceive, does that mean the universe is limited to/by our limited perception?

Does it matter if there is more to the universe than what we can ever possibly hope even in theory to perceive, if we cannot hope to ever be able to perceive it? Anything beyond what directly concerns us may as well not exist? We will never be able to learn anything about it?

But this thread may already be straying into territory not included in the _Chrons_ remit. So mods please feel free to remove it.


----------



## tegeus-Cromis (Jul 1, 2020)

Quantum woo
					

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics. Buzzwords like "energy field", "probability wave", or "wave-particle duality" are used to magically turn thoughts into something tangible in order to directly affect the universe. This results...




					rationalwiki.org
				









						Quantum mysticism - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Our perceptions of the universe are limited to what our human senses can perceive. Our science and x-ray telescopes and colliders etc, are extensions of our human senses....
> If our 'homo sapiens' perception of the universe is limited to what our senses can perceive, does that mean the universe is limited to/by our limited perception?


This also applies to astrophysics descriptions generally. 
The adding of anthropic values._ 'Extremely cold', 'unimaginably hot',' incredibly dense','deadly radiation'_ etc'.
 Values in astrophysics and astronomy are just  'what they are' and habitable zones on earth are not the centre of that scale from which the dramatic universe dares to depart.  
Conditions on a spring day in Lisbon are extremely rare out there and certainly in no way a centre point of values.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Astro Pen said:


> This also applies to astrophysics descriptions generally.
> The adding of anthropic values._ 'Extremely cold', 'unimaginably hot',' incredibly dense','deadly radiation'_ etc'.
> Values in astrophysics and astronomy are just  'what they are' and habitable zones on earth are not the centre of that scale from which the dramatic universe dares to depart.
> Conditions on a spring day in Lisbon are extremely rare out there and certainly in no way a centre point of values.


Correct. The fact we are able to perceive the universe is because the part of the universe that 'reveals' itself to us, is all the universe we ever will be able to perceive -- even in theory.

But that does not limit the universe to our measurement/perception? There are paradoxes around time etc, that concern our ability to perceive?



tegeus-Cromis said:


> Quantum woo
> 
> 
> Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics. Buzzwords like "energy field", "probability wave", or "wave-particle duality" are used to magically turn thoughts into something tangible in order to directly affect the universe. This results...
> ...


No I don't think that's what's happening here. It is not woo to suggest that reality must not be limited to what homo sapiens and his instruments can even in theory ever be able to perceive or measure.

It is wrong to insist there cannot be dimensions, vibrations and entities outside homo sapiens direct natural senses. Imo

It cannot be discounted.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jul 1, 2020)

Justin Swanton said:


> I reproduced the common understanding of consciousness as any sort of awareness of one's surroundings.



"Common understanding"? Last century, perhaps. Things have moved on.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

I hope we can keep sufficient focus on the original posting as to enable this discussion to continue.

I'm a retired English teacher with little reading, directly relevant to this topic, under my hat.  I recall two items from *Discover* magazine (links below): a profile of John Wheeler and an article by Berman and Lanza on "Biocentrism."  I then read their book *Biocentrism *eleven years ago.  (There are one or more followups, which I haven't looked at.)  Of course there've been bits and pieces relevant to the topic that I don't recall.  But the reading just named had affinities with the thought of Owen Barfield, notably in *Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry*, published in the 1950s, which has influenced my thinking since the 1980s. 

Given my lack of conversancy with current scientific cosmology, I'll probably commit a blunder and/or go silent here, but so far this seems like it could be a fun discussion.









						The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
					

Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.




					www.discovermagazine.com
				












						Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
					

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well.




					www.discovermagazine.com


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Stephen Palmer said:


> "Common understanding"? Last century, perhaps. Things have moved on.


Do tell.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 1, 2020)

In general I am skeptical of cosmic takes that center humans. We've done pretty well for ourselves over the last four and a half centuries by sticking to the Copernican principle that there ain't nothing special about us. It's possible (logically possible, not completely out of the question) that we are special in some way, but ideas in that vein are so self-serving that we have to be extremely careful about not fooling ourselves. We should only go down that road if the evidence is overwhelming, and as I see it it most certainly isn't.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Justin Swanton said:


> The universe creating an organism


I'm looking at it the other way round (and using the passive tense to do so), i.e. if something is created, whatever created it is natural (because it _can_ happen and _has_ happened). This is the only way I can see of avoiding the use of assumptions in my statements (assumptions that are not needed in order to question the statements being made in the OP).

Having an argument that depends on something only ever happening once is an argument that depends on an assumption.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> We know that the universe is capable of creating an organism that is conscious, because we exist; we do _not_ know of any mechanism by which the universe would be restricted, for the entire length of its existence, to producing just one such organism.



On the other hand, I've seen what appears to me to be impressive evidence that the conditions for our existence involve a whole host of things that have to be "just right" -- I suppose this is the Anthropic Principle that someone mentioned.  As a (nearly) lifelong reader of science fiction, which so cheerfully populates planets under bizarre solar arrangements, I find this to be a wholesome "Whoa now!"* (I recently reread "Nightfall" by Asimov and enjoyed it as much as ever, I suppose, but kept thinking that its cheerful postulate of humanlike life under those star conditions reflected naïve assumptions about the flexibility of the conditions for life.) 

*As I do Geoff Ryman's advocacy of "mundane sf."  I will go on reading even Edmond Hamilton; but from time to time one needs to remember that (e.g.) faster than light travel _really may well be impossible_.  For that matter, thanks to cosmic radiation, not only is it quite possible that we will _never_ go to the stars; we might never get as far as Mars.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> We know that the universe is capable of creating an organism that is conscious, because we exist; we do _not_ know of any mechanism by which the universe would be restricted, for the entire length of its existence, to producing just one such organism. So we cannot assume that we are unique in that sense (even if that turned out to be the case in reality).



Tentatively, I would put a different spin on this idea.  I'd say that, if there are other organisms like us (for which there is no evidence, while there's an impressive array of evidence that the conditions necessary for Us are terribly specific), then the idea of "species" may need a big update.  If They are there, and are like us, is it necessary or helpful to think of them as being a different species?  They will, presumably, be a different species in that we can't breed with them.  But perhaps that will turn out, in this new context, not to be the most important thing when the question arises as to whether or not organisms are of the same species.

For one thing, if we conceive of Them as of the same species as us, and they do the same for us, each may be less likely to kill the other.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

C. S. Lewis imagined three "species" as inhabiting Mars in *Out of the Silent Planet* (1938).  Sorns can't mate with hrossa and neither can mate with pfifiltriggi, but they are all the same "species" in that they are all _hnau_ (as are humans): rational, moral agents.  Even Lovecraft "got" this.  One of the finest moments in his fiction, one in which he rose above himself you might say, is when the human explorer of the ruins left in the Antarctic realizes that the ancient, bizarre-looking creatures were, in fact -- "Men"!


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> And taking this a step further, might one offer the suggestion that "there is a much more intimate tie between the domestic cat and the universe than we heretofore suspected"?



Well, may I suggest that what's important here is that human beings have the capacity to _love_ members of a different species?  Whether or not there's a more intimate tie between the domestic cat and the universe than is usually supposed, it may be there's a more intimate tie between human beings (in whose nature the capacity to love is a key element) and the universe than is usually supposed.  

I'm serious about this.  Love is not some odd phenomenon completely isolated in me from "other" elements of my consciousness.  It is an integral aspect of that consciousness even if that aspect is held in some degree of abeyance when I do certain types of mental activities such as typing blood, examining spectra, etc.

I might come back to a matter I'll only mention now, the intimate connection that Coleridge identified between _consciousness_ and _conscience_, both of which are (again) integral to our minds and involve love.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> In general I am skeptical of cosmic takes that center humans. We've done pretty well for ourselves over the last four and a half centuries by sticking to the Copernican principle that there ain't nothing special about us. It's possible (logically possible, not completely out of the question) that we are special in some way, but ideas in that vein are so self-serving that we have to be extremely careful about not fooling ourselves. We should only go down that road if the evidence is overwhelming, and as I see it it most certainly isn't.



Would you be willing to consider the two *Discover* articles to which I provided links in #22 above?


----------



## tegeus-Cromis (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> No I don't think that's what's happening here. It is not woo to suggest that reality must not be limited to what homo sapiens and his instruments can even in theory ever be able to perceive or measure.
> 
> It is wrong to insist there cannot be dimensions, vibrations and entities outside homo sapiens direct natural senses. Imo
> 
> It cannot be discounted.


It is precisely what's happening here. A notion of "quantum" is being used to support a quintessentially religious view (that of the humans' privileged relationship to the universe).


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> there's an impressive array of evidence that the conditions necessary for Us are terribly specific


But there's an underlying assumption in that statement that the only way an organism (one that has whatever attribute it is that might make us tied-in to the universe) could come into existence is the way that we have come into existence.

It is, in effect, just an extension of the circular argument "only we _are_ conscious so only we _can_ be conscious", an argument whose first part depends solely of our profound ignorance about almost all of the universe.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> then the idea of "species" may need a big update


We seemed somehow to have strayed into that strange Star Trek universe where aliens can, if they are conscious and intelligent, mate successfully with other aliens that are conscious and intelligent (and using only their and our built-in biological capabilities).

Of all the things about which we are supposed to suspend our disbelief on that show, this is one of the least easy, because it's palpable nonsense**.


** - And yes I do know about the apparent seeding of varous planets by a now extinct alien civilisation (as seen in one of the Next Generation episodes), but IMO that was just rubbing our noses in the palpable nonsense.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

tegeus-Cromis said:


> It is precisely what's happening here. A notion of "quantum" is being used to support a quintessentially religious view (that of the humans' privileged relationship to the universe).


I see it as saying that as homo sapiens perception of the universe is all homo sapiens will ever be able to perceive or measure, does not discount the possibility that there is more out there Horatio.

So it is not the job of science to insist such things do not/ cannot exist? It is beyond the remit of popular media scientists to insist so.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> Would you be willing to consider the two *Discover* articles to which I provided links in #22 above?



I don't think "the moon only exists when we're looking at it" ideas hold much water. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is indeed a problem, but because we're so far from solving it, and there are so many possibilities, I would not place bets on anything. That said, here's what's known so far:

Quantum mechanics does not define an "observer" in any formal way. However, we are observers, so the results of quantum mechanical experiments that we record are filtered through that undeniable fact.

What is defined in QM is a wavefunction. Wavefunctions have the very convenient property that if you add two of them together, you get a third one that's totally valid. This is the principle of superposition. Wavefunctions evolve according to the Schrodinger equation, and that evolution is completely deterministic: the same input will always produce the same output.

Now, from time to time, scientists come along who want to measure certain observable quantities of a particular wavefuncion. Whatever measurement we choose to make can be described mathematically as a superposition of a variety of wavefunctions giving some total wavefunction. And as it turns out, whenever we perform a measurement, our measuring device will record an observable quantity corresponding to only one component of that superposition.

And... that's it. Everything else is our interpretation. There are many possibilities for what all that entails, but to me it seems like what happens when we measure quantum systems is our problem, not reality's.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori, I still think it would be worth your while to read the articles.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 1, 2020)

I skimmed! They've got ideas I've encountered before. (I should be working right now.)


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> But there's an underlying assumption in that statement that the only way an organism (one that has whatever attribute it is that might make us tied-in to the universe) could come into existence is the way that we have come into existence.



Ursa, are you saying you want to banish this point because you think there might be some other way (though you don't need to propose that other way or ways)?   

Are you saying that someone who favors the Anthropic Principle (if that's what I'm doing) has to try to imagine plausible other ways and then show they are not plausible after all?


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

tegeus-Cromis said:


> It is precisely what's happening here. A notion of "quantum" is being used to support a quintessentially religious view (that of the humans' privileged relationship to the universe).



t-C, your comment wasn't directed to me, and I don't need to address it, except I'd like to say that your remark sounds to me like one being made to shut down a discussion.  Is that your intention?


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> I skimmed! They've got ideas I've encountered before. (I should be working right now.)



I too have other stuff I need to get to.  Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> I don't think "the moon only exists when we're looking at it" ideas hold much water. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is indeed a problem, but because we're so far from solving it, and there are so many possibilities, I would not place bets on anything. That said, here's what's known so far:
> 
> Quantum mechanics does not define an "observer" in any formal way. However, we are observers, so the results of quantum mechanical experiments that we record are filtered through that undeniable fact.
> 
> ...


Your answer reminded me of "Queen Sabine's" discussion of the measurement problem that she recently posted:






Wheeler and Linde in the second article do come across as very old-fashioned. Especially with gettting measurement and consciousness mixed up still.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> Having an argument that depends on something only ever happening once is an argument that depends on an assumption.


@Ursa major: there can be no coincidence involved in an event that only happens once. Assuming that homo sapiens (conscious life) was not the _goal_ of abiogenesis + evolution -- has to be the only reasonable way of dealing with it, considering the staggering coincidences upon coincidences that would otherwise be involved.

Accepting this, is it reasonable to assume that staggering set of coincidences did not only occur just once -- on Earth -- but is bound to re-occur almost routinely all over the universe?

Can we have it both ways?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> So it is not the job of science to insist such things do not/ cannot exist?



With the Anthropic Principle we're very much in the realm of philosophy, and you'll find that lots of brilliant scientists have different different personal opinions of this according their own personal experience. There is no scientific insight to be found on the subject - not at the moment.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 1, 2020)

Brian G Turner said:


> With the Anthropic Principle we're very much in the realm of philosophy...There is no scientific insight to be found on the subject



Okay I'm using her again because she explains it better than I can put down in a huge reply in words, but physicist Sabine Hossenfelder would disagree with that statement you've given. Her brief discussion of it is very good and clear, IMO. And she gives examples.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Thanks VB -- both videos saved to watch a little later. 

To anyone: a quick skim (at least) of these two concise articles posted by @Extollager really seems to open up the subject of the thread:



Extollager said:


> The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
> 
> 
> Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.
> ...


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> Ursa, are you saying you want to banish this point because you think there might be some other way (though you don't need to propose that other way or ways)?


Science is and has been full of ideas about what can or cannot be, or be done, because we have only one example of it. As we have discovered, for example, with how planets may be arranged around a star, our solar system has so far not proved to be a particularly good model.

Just as we once knew of only arrangement of a star system (the solar system), we are only aware of one species that is conscious in the way we are, and that is our own species. This single example does not provide adequate proof that another conscious organsism need either: 1) be anything like us; 2) behave in the way we do; 3) have come into being in the way we have (and through the same set of processes and circumstances that we have, whatever they might have been).

Because of this, saying that our existence involves a perhaps unique set of conditions and circumstances and history is (and should be) of no use whatsoever when deciding whether or not there can be other conscious organisms (either now or in the past or future).


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> @Ursa major: there can be no coincidence involved in an event that only happens once. Assuming that homo sapiens (conscious life) was not the _goal_ of abiogenesis + evolution -- has to be the only reasonable way of dealing with it, considering the staggering coincidences upon coincidences that would otherwise be involved.
> 
> Accepting this, is it reasonable to assume that staggering set of coincidences did not only occur just once -- on Earth -- but is bound to re-occur almost routinely all over the universe?
> 
> Can we have it both ways?


Just because something need not be restricted to occuring only once does not mean that it will occur an infinite number of times... and just bcause something may not occur an infinite number of times does not mean that it can occur only once.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> Just because something need not be restricted to occuring only once does not mean that it will occur an infinite number of times... and just bcause something may not occur an infinite number of times does not mean that it can occur only once.


Yes. But as Al Capone observed: 'Once, it's happenstance --  twice, it's coincidence -- third time, it's enemy action (deliberate)'

Is the universe sentient? Is the universe able to observe itself?


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 1, 2020)

Parts of it are.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> Okay I'm using her again because she explains it better than I can put down in a huge reply in words, but physicist Sabine Hossenfelder would disagree with that statement you've given. Her brief discussion of it is very good and clear, IMO. And she gives examples.


Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious. 

Edit: and she doesn't.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> Parts of it are.


Lol


Justin Swanton said:


> Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious.


Strong anthropic principle.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Is the universe sentient? Is the universe able to observe itself?



Have you watched Babylon 5?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 1, 2020)

Brian G Turner said:


> Have you watched Babylon 5?


Not yet, Brian


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 1, 2020)

Justin Swanton said:


> Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious.



She definitely doesn't. That said, there is some evidence which, given certain theoretical priors, lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. I wouldn't say there is _strong_ evidence in favor of the hypothesis, but there's evidence for all sorts of things which turn out not to be true. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> Because of this, saying that our existence involves a perhaps unique set of conditions and circumstances and history is (and should be) of no use whatsoever when deciding whether or not there can be other conscious organisms (either now or in the past or future).



I think it may be harder actually to make a case, on naturalistic presuppositions, for the evolution of conscious organisms that (however) are very unlike us than you're allowing, but I lack recent reading to argue the point.  I think a lot of those (to us) bizarre sf aliens actually would have to go if we critiqued 'em rigorously as regards the basis for nervous systems and so on.

I'm glad RJMCorbet (#45 above) found the articles I recommended to be useful.  Perhaps they would be worth more than a skim!


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 1, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> She definitely doesn't.



She's cute.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 1, 2020)

I forgot to mention having read Rosenblum and Kuttner's *Quantum Engima: Physics Encounters Consciousness *(Oxford 2006 -- well, I read most of it!), Gribbin's *Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique *(Wiley, 2011), etc., which support the tendency of the original posting.


----------



## Parson (Jul 1, 2020)

Isn't it interesting that at the fringes physics, philosophy, and religion begin to overlap? So there are some things we can say with "scientific" certainty. And there are things that are possible and other things that are not possible. Some possible things are beneficial and some possible things are not beneficial. Physics, philosophy and religion each has something to say about what is what.

This is why this thread, which I'm thoroughly enjoying has to be commented on very carefully.


----------



## tegeus-Cromis (Jul 1, 2020)

Extollager said:


> t-C, your comment wasn't directed to me, and I don't need to address it, except I'd like to say that your remark sounds to me like one being made to shut down a discussion.  Is that your intention?


Of course not!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 1, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Not yet, Brian



I think you might enjoy it.


----------



## JimC (Jul 2, 2020)

"we are only aware of one species that is conscious in the way we are, and that is our own species".

What about dogs, horses, parrots, and gorillas? (hi, Koko)


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 2, 2020)

Are dogs, horses, parrots, and gorillas conscious in the way we are?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 2, 2020)

This thread is really beginning to lose its course - let's bring in back around to quantum physics, please.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 2, 2020)

I'll meet you at Pantheism
Spinoza is unavailable but I'm sure he would contribute to the thread if he were around 

ps As a newby If I am sailing too close to the religion ban I won't be offended by this being removed.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 2, 2020)

As most people may have only skimmed this and as the link was further back in the thread, here is a pull-out from one of the articles posted by @Extollager (post #22) in which John Wheeler suggests a macrocosmic demonstration of the two-slit experiment – in effect suggesting that the past of the universe is affected by our observations of the universe as it is now.

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

"Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment ...

Wheeler has come up with a cosmic-scale version of this (two slit) experiment that has even weirder implications. Where the classic experiment demonstrates that physicists' observations determine the behaviour of a photon in the present, Wheeler's version shows that our observations in the present can affect how a photon behaved in the past.

To demonstrate, he sketches a diagram on a scrap of paper. Imagine, he says, a quasar — a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In Wheeler's experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light — photons — from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasars. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits.

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope travelled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make — whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously — the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made _now,_ says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory …

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe ..."

edited


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 2, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> As most people may have only skimmed this and as the link was further back in the thread, here is a pull-out from one of the articles posted by @Extollager (post #22) in which John Wheeler suggests a macrocosmic demonstration of the two-slit experiment – in effect suggesting the effect is also evident on a cosmic scale and so not limited to sub-atomic quantum level:
> 
> Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
> 
> ...


This is just a nice example that we live in a Quantum universe (I'll assume that the experiment has been done, I haven't looked it up to check it's validity. Or know if there are doubts about the result, but let's leave that to one side.) 

So it appears, from experimentation that the two slits can be a metre away or a billion light years away and _as long as the photons we are trying to measure are coherent before the measurement is made* - _we get the same results. Which shows that Quantum theory remains valid, which is a good thing. It would be eye-popping if it weren't the case. The Quasar example is extreme, but what it shows is that even if we did the experiment with slits at one metre, when we make a measurement, decoherence caused by measurement, makes the quantum effects vanish. Which we interpret, as limited beings of space and time, as somehow changing something in the past.  

I don't see this as a paradox or issue -  just that we are chronically underequipped as humans to actually make any sense of the quantum world of the very small. Our experience is of a 'macro Newtonian classical' world instead. 

It is a problem with regards to Einsteins misgivings about this instantaneous 'movement' that occurs at the moment of measurement (which is greater than the speed of light)...but both General Relativity and Quantum theory are clearly incomplete theories that need to be overhauled to make a better theory of the universe. That is not a contentious statement - I am sure all physcists agree with this. 

The important thing is that we don't need 'consciouness'** in modern Quantum theory to cause this. 

I'm pretty sure Wheeler was talking about this sort of thing in the 1960s - at least I remember reading about this in the mid 1980s, so this isn't a new idea. 

------------------------------------------
* I refer you to view the Sabine video "Is Covid there if nobody looks?" posted above that discusses decoherence and the measurement problem. 

** Frankly we don't have a good definiton of what this actually is, which probably needs a thread of its own...but I don't think we'd get very far


----------



## Astro Pen (Jul 2, 2020)

My own theory is that what we experience as the "now" is the point of quantum probability resolution. The future has multiple possibilities, and _may_ be mutable in terms of will. But the now is the point where the probability collapses as the 'targets', in all their forms, are hit and the probability wave disappears, leaving only the single locked outcome called 'the past'.
Past and future are qualitatively different in that regard.
Whether we confuse free will with simply 'not knowing outcomes' is one for the philosophers. 
The moving finger of probability writes, and having writ moves on.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 2, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> This is just a nice example that we live in a Quantum universe (I'll assume that the experiment has been done, I haven't looked it up to check it's validity. Or know if there are doubts about the result, but let's leave that to one side.)
> 
> So it appears, from experimentation that the two slits can be a metre away or a billion light years away and _as long as the photons we are trying to measure are coherent before the measurement is made* - _we get the same results. Which shows that Quantum theory remains valid, which is a good thing. It would be eye-popping if it weren't the case. The Quasar example is extreme, but what it shows is that even if we did the experiment with slits at one metre, when we make a measurement, decoherence caused by measurement, makes the quantum effects vanish. Which we interpret, as limited beings of space and time, as somehow changing something in the past.
> 
> ...


Thanks VB. Yes I did watch the two videos you posted.

Yes the observer doesn't have to be human, or even conscious. Also the distance doesn't affect the two-slit experiment because it is still measuring sub-atomic photons, regardless of the distance they have travelled. 

But the time-lag adds in the past/present entanglement complication?

And in practice the observer in the case is human? It is a human measuring the arrival of the photon?

But ... it quickly spirals away over my head. It gets weird. Wheeler's physics is obviously way out of my league. Even the simplified stuff.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 2, 2020)

As far as Wheeler's quasar thing, the experiment as described hasn't really been done. To get interference effects between two galaxies, you'd need to be looking at light with wavelengths on the order of that distance; ELF is an understatement. But the tabletop version--which has been performed--gets called the delayed choice quantum eraser. Here's a critical look at the interpretation of that experiment from a Many Worlds guy, physicist Sean Carroll.






						The Notorious Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser – Sean Carroll
					






					www.preposterousuniverse.com
				




An important bit:



> “But interference only happens when the traveling electron goes through both slits, and the smooth distribution happens when it goes through only one slit. That decision — go through both slits, or just through one — happens long before we measure the recording electrons! So obviously, our choice to measure them horizontally rather than vertically had to _send a signal backward in time _to tell the traveling electrons to go through both slits rather than just one!”
> 
> After a short, befuddled pause, the class erupts with objections. Decisions? Backwards in time? What are we talking about? The electron doesn’t make a choice to travel through one slit or the other. Its wave function (and that of whatever it’s entangled with) evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, just like always. The electron doesn’t make choices, it unambiguously goes through both slits, but it becomes entangled along the way. By measuring the recording photons along different directions, we can pick out different parts of that entangled wave function, some of which exhibit interference and others do not. Nothing really went backwards in time. It’s kind of a cool result, but it’s not like we’re building a frickin’ time machine here.



Basically, these experiments don't actually "erase" any information about the wavefunction. All that happens is the information gets entangled with various parts of the experimental setup, such that they're not available to you (and the detector).


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 2, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> But the tabletop version--which has been performed--gets called the delayed choice quantum eraser


Oh, so that's the principle of the delayed choice quantum eraser. Thank you.






Sean Carrol and the philosophy of physics.


----------



## Extollager (Jul 2, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> Are dogs, horses, parrots, and gorillas conscious in the way we are?



I don't think they are.  A simple way of suggesting why goes like this: Man is the animal, the only animal so far as we know, that makes promises.

In order to make promises you have to have three capacities, all working together.

1.You have to have a sense of personal identity: because I know that I am I, I can make a promise on my own behalf. 
2.You have to have a sense of the future, a time that does not exist for us, but will.
3.You have to have a language that can express the above.  (I can't imagine how one would make a promise or a vow, even inwardly to oneself, without language.)

So far as I am aware, there's no evidence that these animals -- elephants might be added to the list -- possess those capacities. 

Now how these capacities of human beings might relate to quantum entanglement might or might not be germane to the present discussion.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 6, 2020)

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment:


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 7, 2020)




----------



## Ursa major (Jul 7, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment:


Speaking from utter and complete ignorance of even the basics of wave functions (amongst many other aspects of this and other matters scientific) -- not that I have to tell you this, given what I'm about to say -- I was wondering about the scope of the wave function in the experiment.

Could the wave function not include (at minimum) _all_ of the experimental equipment as well as the subject of the experiment, rather than just the particle(s) being experimented upon? If so, why would information need to be passed backwards in time? Wouldn't the observed result of the experiment be the result of the collapse of this _wider_ wave function?

Or, to put it another way, are we not perhaps getting an odd (i.e. counter-intuitive) result because we are mistaking what is no more than a _part_ of an isolated quantum system for an isolated quantum system?


(In case you're wondering, I've purchased both a bullet-proof vest and a big bucket of popcorn, so I should be prepared for whatever reaction my question elicits, so feel free to let rip if you want to.)


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 7, 2020)

Indeed, there is but one wave function (from a certain point of view). With very careful setup, we can isolate small chunks of it. But only temporarily.

Less mysteriously, from the perspective of quantum field theory, all of space is permeated by various fields (the electron field, the quark field, the Higgs field, etc.). These fields vibrate with particular modes (adding up to a total wave function), and if some small patch of a field gets excited, we call that excitation a particle.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 11, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> Speaking from utter and complete ignorance of even the basics of wave functions (amongst many other aspects of this and other matters scientific) -- not that I have to tell you this, given what I'm about to say -- I was wondering about the scope of the wave function in the experiment.
> 
> Could the wave function not include (at minimum) _all_ of the experimental equipment as well as the subject of the experiment, rather than just the particle(s) being experimented upon? If so, why would information need to be passed backwards in time? Wouldn't the observed result of the experiment be the result of the collapse of this _wider_ wave function?
> 
> ...


It's obviously not a simple discussion. Here is the full 90-minute Joe Rogan/Sean Carroll podcast. Of course it's not necessary to listen to the whole thing to continue the discussion.

Can an ant, even in principle, ever understand a cell phone? Can man ever, even in principle, understand the universe? The 'pop' media physicists seem to believe that the answer is yes. So perhaps that's the focus of the real debate?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 11, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Can man ever, even in principle, understand the universe?


The question you need to ask yourself -- that we need to ask ourselves before we claim to be special in the greater scheme of things -- is whether or not (and how) _Homo sapiens_ is more than "a tiny cog that doesn’t really make much difference to the running of the huge machine", when the species in the the family Formicidae are (assumed) not to be?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 11, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> The question you need to ask yourself -- that we need to ask ourselves before we claim to be special in the greater scheme of things -- is whether or not (and how) _Homo sapiens_ is more than "a tiny cog that doesn’t really make much difference to the running of the huge machine", when the species in the the family Formicidae are (assumed) not to be?


Well your comment is not a response to the sentence from my post that you pulled out?

Newton and Einstein and others believed that they were just uncovering a small part of reality. There was that humility. The modern perception that science can understand everything -- even in principle -- that's the issue?


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 11, 2020)

I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of Einstein. He might not have said science can understand everything full stop, but he did believe the world was intrinsically knowable. There's a quote from him that goes, "Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not." Lord/He here are probably best understood as Nature, and what Einstein meant is that while the world may be hard to understand, it's not designed to be cruelly, hopelessly complicated.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 11, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of Einstein. He might not have said science can understand everything full stop, but he did believe the world was intrinsically knowable. There's a quote from him that goes, "Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not." Lord/He here are probably best understood as Nature, and what Einstein meant is that while the world may be hard to understand, it's not designed to be cruelly, hopelessly complicated.


But at the same time we are saying that man is no different really than a wasp against a window pane? Which is it to be -- is man special enough to be able to understand the universe, or not? 

Is the world 'designed' to be cruelly, hopelessly complicated? Does the dog care whether the flea on its back understands it or not?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Well your comment is not a response to the sentence from my post that you pulled out?


It is if you think that while we're able to understand the universe more than the ants (as, obviously, we do), we'll always fall short of a full understanding.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> It is if you think that while we're able to understand the universe more than the ants (as, obviously, we do), we'll always fall short of a full understanding.


Man's scientific instruments are an extension of the human senses. That is all man will ever be able to perceive, even in principle -- in the same way that an ant cannot perceive more than what being an ant allows it to. But the universe does not have to be limited to what men or ants can know about it?

There can be a lot out there which man can never comprehend or measure. Can we have it both ways?

Is man just another random creature or is man the highest intelligence in the universe? Does man have the capability to fully understand the universe?


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 12, 2020)

Mainstream scientific consensus maintains that all life evolved by a natural process of increasing molecular and then organic complexity governed by random chance and physical influences like natural selection.* It also maintains that intelligence is just an aspect of biological complexity: all living organisms have some awareness of their environment (viruses for example 'know' when they have contacted a suitable host cell) and that awareness increases in complexity in more complex organisms, growing through different kinds of sensory perception and culminating in intelligence. 'Intelligence' in the mainstream scientific view is nothing more than a rather sophisticated degree of biological awareness.**

Since it is not permissible to query this consensus (at least on this forum) the question posed by the OP is answered in advance: the universe is not tied to Homo Sapiens in any way. Man is another biological species that arose by happenstance, nothing more. Since his origin is a result of random chance there is no significance to his existence. The only thing linking any part of the universe to any other are the laws of physics. These laws have no 'significance' in themselves either: they just happen to be the way matter exists. The very existence of the universe itself has no significance: its origins are unclear but the scientific consensus rejects any cause that is not itself material, i.e. the universe comes from an earlier universe or arose from some other material process.

This scientific consensus in consequence rules out philosophical speculations as nothing more than that: speculations, or more accurately a form of fantasizing that has no grounding in reality. People should use their intelligence to better understand how the universe works without bothering to assign any 'why' to it. Which seems rather unsatisfactory but that's the way it is. And we will probably never completely master the how since there are limits to our ability to observe matter and understand the results of our observations. Can anyone really understand a black hole?

*This consensus is different from scientific certitude: the explanation for the origin of life remains a 'theory'. It has not yet been classified as a law.

**The scientific method excludes any cause for a observable effect that is not itself material and hence observable. "Intelligence" or 'thinking" or "consciousness" are observable effects, hence they must be assigned an observable cause, which in this case is the biological organism they originate from.


----------



## mosaix (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Does man have the capability to fully understand the universe?



Maybe not now but natural selection may bring about a ‘superman’. Who’s to say how the human race will evolve?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

mosaix said:


> Maybe not now but natural selection may bring about a ‘superman’. Who’s to say how the human race will evolve?


Does that mean man may acquire more subtle senses than what he has now? I do understand the the whole scientific consensus thing. But my point all along has been that because man's perception is limited to his senses (to 'nature') does not require that the universe should limit itself to what man is able to perceive?

And in this I include all of the spectacular scientific advances that man has made and the instruments and colliders and the wonderful telescopes; I do not deny those at all, but they remain extensions of man's senses.

So by limiting the universe even in principle to what man is able to perceive, there's a bit of mission creep? A bit of scientific humility may be in order. Imo.

I do understand that on this forum it may not be possible to push this thing too far. But I may not be alone in enjoying the discussion. Thank you.


----------



## mosaix (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Does that mean man may acquire more subtle senses than what he has now? I do understand the the whole scientific consensus thing. But my point all along has been that because man's perception is limited to his senses (to 'nature') does not require that the universe should limit itself to what man is able to perceive?
> 
> And in this I include all of the spectacular scientific advances that man has made and the instruments and colliders and the wonderful telescopes; I do not deny those at all, but they remain extensions of man's senses.
> 
> ...


I’m interested in your word ‘perceive’ RJM. 

Do you include man’s ability to deduce in that? We can deduce that the universe has certain properties without being able to perceive them.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

mosaix said:


> I’m interested in your word ‘perceive’ RJM.
> 
> Do you include man’s ability to deduce in that? We can deduce that the universe has certain properties without being able to perceive them.


Well deduction remains speculation until it's confirmed by experiment? There are a few theories of everything floating around; one is as good as the other until there's an experiment to confirm it?

So perhaps by 'perceive' I mean 'measure.' Of course measurement requires a frame of reference. And any frame of reference homo sapiens can define is going to be limited by the fact that he is homo sapiens.

Perhaps it goes back to the musical analogy in a way: the Western system of music is quantized by choosing middle C and spacing seven full and five half notes from that, in the same way the Standard Model system of science is based on the quantization of the hydrogen atom.

But there may be other ways of looking at it,  and the electron, or gravity, may extend into dimensions and vibrations that homo sapiens is not ever going to be capable of perceiving -- or measuring?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Does man have the capability to fully understand the universe?


I would argue that we don't: as alluded to by Justin Swanton, how can we know what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole, let alone understand it?



Justin Swanton said:


> the explanation for the origin of life remains a 'theory'.


I doubt that it's a Theory, as that it would be "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Not being a part of the scientific community, I can't say whether or not it would even meet the criteria for being a Hypothesis.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Jul 12, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> I doubt that it's a Theory, as that it would be "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
> 
> Not being a part of the scientific community, I can't say whether or not it would even meet the criteria for being a Hypothesis.



Good point. Wikipedia (good a place to start as any) defines a scientific hypothesis thus:

A *hypothesis* (plural *hypotheses*) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research,[1] in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.​
So for natural selection to rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis, one needs to be able to test it. But how do you do that in the case of evolving organisms? The theory/hypothesis requires tens or hundreds of thousands of years for any appreciable changes to appear, so testing is _de facto _impossible. Hence this explanation for the origin and development of life falls outside the field of scientific enquiry. We're left with unverifiable speculation.

Hope I'm not sailing too close to the wind?


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 12, 2020)

I was *not* talking about natural selection (so however close you were or were not sailing to the wind, it was entirely the _wrong_ wind), but what I quoted from your post, i.e. the explanation for the origin of life.


But with _specific_ regard to the _timescales_ involved in the testing of natural selection.... We have access (often unwanted) to organisms -- not to mention viruses (what happened to them that they disappeared from the public consciousness?) -- that have both _very_ short times between generations and (as a biproduct of that) the ability to mulitply greatly. It is with such subjects that testing is possible without the need for experiments lasting tens or hundreds of thousands of years.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

Well I believe that a respectable scientific theory or hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, should not only be able to make predictions. but also should be falsifiable. It should be testable enough to be able to demonstrate a case in which it fails?


----------



## Dave (Jul 12, 2020)

You can prove natural selection in a matter of weeks/months. There are organisms with very short generations. I bred Drosophila fruit flies at school and they reproduce in a matter of hours. Thousands of examples of natural selection with regards to tolerance to pollution. All kinds of plant tolerances to heavy metals. Just Google "peppered moths" if you want more proof. How do you think we got farm animals and our major food crops if not by selection? Never heard of Gregor Mendel? Did they stop teaching science in schools?

The idea that man sits at the top of a tree of evolution was long ago dismissed. Man is evolving. Very slowly, but measurably now that we can analyse genomes. We are not Gods that can influence the Universe. There doesn't need to be any "plan." There only needs to be properties of matter than remain constant, and entropy.

Can things be proven by "deduction"? Things can be proven by the application of mathematics and physics. We can tell that distant stars have planets, how many and their relative masses, without being able to see them. It is not necessary to know every detail of a thing to understand what that thing is, or to know exactly how a thing works in order to understand and record what it does.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Perhaps it goes back to the musical analogy in a way: the Western system of music is quantized by choosing middle C and spacing seven full and five half notes from that, in the same way the Standard Model system of science is based on the quantization of the hydrogen atom.


Where on earth does this come from? (The hydrogen atom bit???) Not true at all.



RJM Corbet said:


> But there may be other ways of looking at it,  and the electron, or gravity, may extend into dimensions and vibrations that homo sapiens is not ever going to be capable of perceiving -- or measuring?



mmm....I cannot truly percieve a quantum particle, something which is both a particle and a wave, however there it stands as something we've figured out as sentient beings. Such an object stands outside our experience.

Going to the further extreme though - not being able to measure. It could be true I suppose, but how would one prove it? And equally how could one prove it false? And if we can do neither why worry about it?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> Where on earth does this come from? (The hydrogen atom bit???) Not true at all.


Well I believe that quantum theory, the theory that light comes in discrete little packets, was originally deducted from observation of the light spectrum emitted by the electron of the hydrogen atom changing/falling levels? The first step towards the standard model in fact. Is that wrong?



Venusian Broon said:


> And if we can do neither why worry about it?


Ah, but some of us do, lol. However I have no problem with natural selection at all.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jul 12, 2020)

Justin Swanton said:


> *This consensus is different from scientific certitude: the explanation for the origin of life remains a 'theory'. It has not yet been classified as a law.



Everything in science is based on consensus, even the things you might classify as laws or theories.


----------



## Don (Jul 12, 2020)

_Privileged Planet_ pull quotes:


> The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries.
> 
> The best place in the entire solar system to view solar eclipses is from the earth. The one place that has observers is the one place that has the best eclipses. What if those things that make a planet habitable also make it the best place for scientific observations?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> Well I believe that a respectable scientific theory or hypothesis, or whatever you want to call it, should not only be able to make predictions. but also should be falsifiable. It should be testable enough to be able to demonstrate a case in which it fails?


Given that this whole thread started with no more than a "we are beginning to suspect that...", and that there is no way to prove the suspicion is correct (and so it's not falsifiable), it doesn't look as if it's ever going to be "respectable".


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

Ursa major said:


> doesn't look as if it's ever going to be "respectable".


Ok. Sorry. But I don't think it was really posted as anything like a proper 'respectable' scientific theory. It is a philosophical question, but one considered by serious scientific people like John Wheeler, that extends outside the area of what science can properly investigate? Beyond the limits of science. The thread has meandered a bit. I don't feel I have much more to say about it.


Don said:


> Privileged Planet


Did you write or contribute to that book?


----------



## Ambrose (Jul 12, 2020)

Yes, but the meanderings are interesting.  Reminds me of the Piet Hein Grook - if memory is correct: 'Knowing what thou knowest not, is, in a sense, omniscience.'


----------



## Dave (Jul 12, 2020)

RJM Corbet said:


> But I don't think it was really posted as anything like a proper 'respectable' scientific theory. It is a philosophical question


You began this thread by posting it, so I assume that you still remember the reason that you did. If it is not a "proper respectable scientific theory" it should not have been posted in the *Science and Nature* forum. If it is instead, a "philosophical question" then keep the discussion to metaphysics.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jul 12, 2020)

Dave said:


> You began this thread by posting it, so I assume that you still remember the reason that you did. If it is not a "proper respectable scientific theory" it should not have been posted in the *Science and Nature* forum. If it is instead, a "philosophical question" then keep the discussion to metaphysics.


Are you lecturing me and insulting my intelligence, Dave? Sounds like it? Anyway enough with it ...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2020)

Okay, after 6 pages there's been plenty of discussion but it seems the tone is going down, so better to close this thread and move on I think.


----------

