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

[Ursa major]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

*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]

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?

Out of seven planets with an atmosphere, only the earth's atmosphere is transparent.

A very narrow spectrum, one trillionth of a trillionth of EM radiation, visible light, is the most informative about the universe around us.

The solar system is located in relatively safe and uncrowded region between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms. The earth is located in the best location of our galaxy for astronomical research. We're located near the midpoint of a highly flattened galaxy, between spiral arms, in a region with very low dust. It does not obscure a large part of the sky.

 

[Ursa major]

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]

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.

Privileged Planet

Did you write or contribute to that book?

 

[Ambrose]

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]

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.