The Nature of the Universe

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Ok. I am going to avoid being drawn into lengthy, technical arguments. I assume you will not stipulate that the universe has evolved in a way that could be described by the word 'direction'.

It doesn't really need to be a technical argument. I mistakenly assumed that by refering to the items on your list that you were making your point with technical information. On empirical grounds I agree that time shows direction, but you also asked earlier to respond on philosophical grounds, and I'll agree that direction is shown by the growth in human knowledge for example. If direction is going to remain fuzzy though, its not clear what the purpose is in getting us to "agree" that "there is direction" in the universe, since the validity of any arguments that depend on the statement "the universe has direction" must by predicate logic be similarly fuzzy. On the other hand if we were able to define what is meant by the term "direction" it would be easy to prove the following steps. You can go either way here, I'm just suggesting that it might be better to define the term more specifically. But either way, please proceed!

Cheers,
Buffy

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Buffy

It doesn't really need to be a technical argument. I mistakenly assumed that by refering to the items on your list that you were making your point with technical information. On empirical grounds I agree that time shows direction, but you also asked earlier to respond on philosophical grounds, and I'll agree that direction is shown by the growth in human knowledge for example. If direction is going to remain fuzzy though, its not clear what the purpose is in getting us to "agree" that "there is direction" in the universe, since the validity of any arguments that depend on the statement "the universe has direction" must by predicate logic be similarly fuzzy. On the other hand if we were able to define what is meant by the term "direction" it would be easy to prove the following steps. You can go either way here, I'm just suggesting that it might be better to define the term more specifically. But either way, please proceed!

Cheers,
Buffy

When we begin analyzing any emirical evidence, there is alway fuzziness. I think theoretical physics is still very fuzzy. I think the concept of electric charge is fuzzy, but I would not object to it being injecting into this analysis. It at least provides a starting point. According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time doesn't even exist. I would say that is getting really fuzzy. I believe a conclusion that mechanical properties can lead to life and intelligence is very fuzzy. I want to remove the fuzziness, but do not believe it can be done before even beginning.

When this thread first started, I did not define direction. Since I started it a second time I added a definition. The first one is fine with me. I originally wanted others to define direction and whether or not the universe demonstrated it. I restarted the thread and made the mistake of offerring a definition. The one I added was meant to be worded so that it might be generally accepted. Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion. The evidence and the properties that constitute it do not even have to be identified. I think it does not matter what my definition is. Is it possible to construct the box?

Can someone else, who accepts that the universe has direction, please word a definition of direction?

If you do this, it will save me from having to defend the definition every other step along the way. Before we move farther along, I will leave time to see if any other members want to address the matter of defining direction.

James

[Turtle]

___I refer you to Goodel's Last Theorem, wherin it is proved that under any well developed system of math or logic there will arise propositions that are undemonstrable. I suggest yours is one such; to continue therefore is an exercise in futility & inefficient use of time.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Turtle

___I refer you to Goodel's Last Theorem, wherin it is proved that under any well developed system of math or logic there will arise propositions that are undemonstrable. I suggest yours is one such; to continue therefore is an exercise in futility & inefficient use of time.

OK. Your position is on the record. Thank you.

James

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

According to the physicist Julian Barbour, time doesn't even exist.

Although respected, not many people support Julian Barbour's theory mainly because it so clearly invokes circular reasoning: "I have a theory that unites Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. It involves assuming there is no such thing as time. Since we know that Gravity and Quantum mechanics are unified, we know that my theory is true, therefore there is no time. QED."

Many of us probably like time as something showing direction: it is easily measurable (albeit in a relativisitic manner) and widely accepted. Are you saying this is an unacceptable definition of direction?

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion.

That sounds like a fine definition, although I'm somewhat confused as to what this definition has to do with "direction," you could probably proceed on that definition because I know of few people here who would argue with it.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Lazlo Toth]

My English professors always pounded into me: "Define your terms!" So I guess I have been deluded into thinking that is important. Are all definitions fuzzy? Are fuzzy definitions useless? I think I know what a dog is when I see it. It has four legs, hair and it barks. I know that a wolf looks like a dog and doesn't bark. I guess those definitions are fuzzy, but I think I can usually tell the difference between a dog and a wolf, and since other people use these same definitions, usually when I call something a dog, most people will agree with me. Even DNA sequences are fuzzy, but you could come up with rules for analyzing them that would always lead you to correctly conclude that an animal was a dog or not, right? I guess my question is that the word direction has several meanings according to my dictionary: "being directed by a person or force," "a set of instructions," "going to a specific place," "a heading", "a goal or purpose." These seem to be a bit different, don't they? I guess I am happy with the notion that the Universe is "heading someplace," but I know some people might not agree about it having a "goal or purpose." I can see how they might be concerned that you were trying not to define which meaning you mean by it because later you would say "but you said you agreed that the universe has direction so you already agreed that it has a goal or purpose." Wouldn't they be right to be concerned about that? Would it be possible to use one of these dictionary definitions?

Lazlo

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Toth

My English professors always pounded into me: "Define your terms!" So I guess I have been deluded into thinking that is important. Are all definitions fuzzy? Are fuzzy definitions useless? I think I know what a dog is when I see it. It has four legs, hair and it barks. I know that a wolf looks like a dog and doesn't bark. I guess those definitions are fuzzy, but I think I can usually tell the difference between a dog and a wolf, and since other people use these same definitions, usually when I call something a dog, most people will agree with me. Even DNA sequences are fuzzy, but you could come up with rules for analyzing them that would always lead you to correctly conclude that an animal was a dog or not, right? I guess my question is that the word direction has several meanings according to my dictionary: "being directed by a person or force," "a set of instructions," "going to a specific place," "a heading", "a goal or purpose." These seem to be a bit different, don't they? I guess I am happy with the notion that the Universe is "heading someplace," but I know some people might not agree about it having a "goal or purpose." I can see how they might be concerned that you were trying not to define which meaning you mean by it because later you would say "but you said you agreed that the universe has direction so you already agreed that it has a goal or purpose." Wouldn't they be right to be concerned about that? Would it be possible to use one of these dictionary definitions?

Lazlo

Lazlo,

I think this is good input. I must not have made my intentions clear. I did not intend to define the box. I was willing to let that come from those who feel our empirical evidence is being analyzed rather well. Others would be able to make enough difficult stipulations that all would be satisfied that I was in a locked box. I considered definitions and interpretations to be a part of constructing that box. I only intended to enter the box and work my way out of it. I feel it may be sufficient to establish stipulations that appear to negate my position from the start. The boundary would be that their formulation should be based upon empirical evidence.

For example, I think one of these stipulations could be that the fundamental properties of the universe are mechanical. I am willing to be required to overcome this stipulation. Perhaps another could be that our evolution on the earth has been too confined for us to have developed the intelligence necessary to comprehend the nature of the universe. You can see though, that by my suggesting these stipulations, I am participating in building the box.

Attempting to begin this thread has been instructive. I have had the opportunity to think the matter through for a while. So, I will offer another suggestion. Perhaps asking anyone to build the box ahead of time was not a good idea. Maybe it can't be built before we start. It seems that it must include conclusions that can be reached only after analyzing the evidence. The conclusions themselves are debatable. If we begin our debate by putting conclusions up front, then we are forced to debate the conclusions. The problem seems to be that the conclusions must wait for the group analysis. I am thinking that we might instead retrace some of the scientific discoveries and their analyses. We could begin small and avoid many conflicts over principles and established conclusions. They could be offered up as part of the analysis so long as they are not introduced prematurely. Prematurely for me means they have been established by evidence that has not yet been introduced. When it comes to the analysis part, others would have the opportunity to box me in along the way.

This way we would not have to concern ourselves with whether or not the universe has direction. We would only have to recognize there is empirical evidence that exhibits interesting patterns that need to be analyzed. We would be like the scientists who participated in the discoveries and sought out their meanings. If anyone likes this idea better, but wishes to propose it in their own way, I am open to that.

Thank you for your message. I think we were becoming confronted with a difficult roadblock before we even got moving. Perhaps we may be able to go around it. I appreciate your opinion.

James

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Although respected, not many people support Julian Barbour's theory mainly because it so clearly invokes circular reasoning: "I have a theory that unites Gravity and Quantum Mechanics. It involves assuming there is no such thing as time. Since we know that Gravity and Quantum mechanics are unified, we know that my theory is true, therefore there is no time. QED."

Many of us probably like time as something showing direction: it is easily measurable (albeit in a relativisitic manner) and widely accepted. Are you saying this is an unacceptable definition of direction?

Maybe I should have thought about it more. My feeling at the time I saw it was it would have to established how we know time exists. It seems to be dependent upon the fact that events exist. If events didn't exist, how would we be able to establish that time existed. It seemed to me this would return us to having to debate physical evidence and its interpretation.

Originally Posted by James

Here is my definition of direction: The empirical evidence can be analyzed in an orderly fashion.

Originally Posted by Buffy

That sounds like a fine definition, although I'm somewhat confused as to what this definition has to do with "direction," you could probably proceed on that definition because I know of few people here who would argue with it.

Cheers,
Buffy

My definition is based upon orderliness being evidence of direction. I should have made clear that in my definition I am not concerned with limitations such as irreversiblity. If reversibility occurs, I consider that to still be direction. The direction may have been reversed, but it is still direction. The point being that direction is always present even when direction changes. For me a universe that oscillated between maximum expansion and minimum compression would still have direction.

If others feel like I do, I am impatient to begin. However, I think it is best to get it right. It should not be rushed. Just trying to get it right may be a valuable learning esperience.

James

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I think that for the sake of argument, I have no problems accepting that given the 5 points James listed, these all have an impact on the direction the universe will take.

I also am a bit unsure as to what lies in the term "direction" but if my earlier understanding of it as "irreversible change" is correct then I think I can grasp the meaning of that.

You had previously offered a definition for direction. I followed up by saying your definition was what I intended. I have since given a definition of my own. I want to explain why. I did not at first define direction, because, I thought the group would adopt a definition that is typically put forward by physicists. Your definition was that kind. It was what I anticipated. I thought it was good. When restarting the thread, I worded it myself, and it didn't work as well as your wording. Due to disagreement, I soon was bogged down on it. I assumed, as a result, that others would really like to see me define direction. So, I offered my definition. I don't think mine is more appropriate or valuable for the purposes of this discussion. It is just different. I do not anticipate others will readily accept it. So, I am attempting to work around the problem. I have proposed a different way of proceding. However, it is not crucial to me which way we proceed. I am not of the opinion that the beginning can be made perfectly correct to everyone's satisfaction.

James

[James Putnam]

To all,

I have been thinking, (about time right? ) I propose a different begining. I think it is not really appropriate for me to ask for agreement on the universe having direction. The arguments I am using to justify my position rely upon after-the-fact conclusions. It would be appropriate for me to debate in favor of a direction for the universe only after physics knowledge had been established. For example I might try to use it as a lead into a discussion about the origin of intelligence. However, it seems to me that the analysis of a mechanical nature should be established before direction can be established. Also, I think I am already in the box. I think it is not necessary for it to be built. I have, by my own conclusions, already jumped into it.

I think that a discussion about the nature of the universe would normally involve discerning the meaning of a lot of already 'established' knowledge. The problem I face is that I have questions about the validity of 'established' knowledge. I know from looking around at some other forums here, that there is valuable input. And, I recognize I am very probably alone in my ideas. My participation in this discussion would put me at odds with probably everyone else. That circumstance may be interpreted as my already being in the box. I think discussions about the nature of the universe are rewarding. Now, because of the unique position I have taken, this discussion of the nature of the universe would probably be quite different from the other types. This does not mean a discussion with my involvement would make it better than the others. It may prove to be fruitless. However, it would test not just my interpretation, but also that of others. I would like to experiment with it just far enough for us to judge its value.

My proposal then is to begin with a simple example problem. We each look at it and try to confirm its meaning. It is mechanical. Even thought my hope is to reach beyond mechanical interpretations, I think it is an adequate test just to see what develops. Maybe it will lead to new insights that energize us to go farther or it may show quickly that little is to be gained. The example problem I suggest we use is the one I put forward in my first post here. We can skip any of the extra irrelevant conclusions of mine. My thoughts about how I think f=ma should be evaluated for meaning are put forward. Other participants can look ahead and know where I am going. Opposing viewpoints can then be formulated to show where I am going wrong. Here is the relevant quote from my first post:

Originally Posted by James

Looking back at the beginning fundamentals, here is an example of how quickly you will have gone astray. Lets assume you observe objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists only of measurements of distance and time. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. So you do not know what is 'f' or what is 'm'.

Two out of three properties in your equation have unknown natures. Your theory is already in crisis. In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force. Now you are able to define the second unknown property 'f' in terms of the empirically known 'a' and the theoretically invented 'm'.

If you are wrong about your guess for 'm', then your definition of force is also wrong. This early error spreads quickly into higher-level theory. The incorrect nature of force infects your definitions of both energy and momentum.

I am not going to try to reword it. I think most people are aware that I have been adjusting to life at Hypography. If its wording is too strong, please excuse it. I would like to have the viewpoint of others about this part of the quote.

Originally Posted by James

In order to proceed, you must guess, i.e. theorize, one of the unknown properties into existence. In other words, you must invent a nature for one. Lets say you invent mass to account for resistance to force.

What do you think?

James