Judging the Universe

Post Reply New Topic

One question on the theory of Heat Death/Big Crunch - why do we think we can predict an end to the universe?
I'd personally think such assertions on the universe from our world would be like the old astrologers making assertions of the solar system from their city-states. (no offense to anyone who is an astrologer. It's an interesting protoscience)

"We have the best technology/mathematics possibe at the time," You may say. "So did they," I say. Nowdays, we look at them as crackpots. On day, perhaps, people will think the same of modern science.

My arguement; Science shouldn't try to judge the universe.

Science is not used to "judge", it is used to "determine".

Current knowledge of thermodynamics and the expansion of the universe lead to the determination that the energy content of the universe is slowly degrading. That is, all potential energy is being converted to heat. This heat radiates. Once the radiated heat has reached equilibrium - that is, once everything in the universe reaches the same temperature - no further activity can occur, since action requires energy to flow from a point of greater energy to a point of lesser energy.

With everything, everywhere being the same temperature (somewhere near absolute zero), nothing more can happen - the universe "dies".

This is Heat Death.

Of course, an opposing view is that there is sufficient non-baryonic matter for its gravity to slow the expansion of the universe and eventually bring that expansion to a halt. Then, the universe will contract into a singularity (the "Big Crunch") and the process (maybe) starts all over again with a new "Big Bang"

But if what you're really trying to say is that scientists should not study the universe, then that would be a very presumptuous imperative - as if you alone have the privilege of deciding what scientists should and should not study.

I hope that is not the case.

What I am saying is that it is neither feasible nor reasonable to believe that you can determine the laws of the universe from a single part of the universe. We should not be trying to determine the ultimate fate of the universe when we aren't even out of our single solar system. To do so, I find, is to say the world is flat based on where you stand on Earth.

Study is different from determining. Study observes without judgement. Determining observes with judgement.
It is better to give data, the observations, rather than give an analysis of said data, the determination.

I say scientists should study the universe, not determine it.

They are studying the universe!



Eventually, they may determine enough of its principles to develop a Grand Unification Field Theory that describes pretty much everything this side of a singularity.

What do you think is wrong with that?

That they are trying to propose parts of said theory before they know the universe. Primarily that based on those proposals, people utilize them as a philosophy to life.
And that as such one is taught scientific laws rather than what led to the original theories-turned-laws so that they could figure out their own theories.
I do question how a GUT can work in a nonlinear system (Chaotic)

That's just part of the scientific method - you propose an idea, test it, observe the results, and if everything goes as predicted, you have a new theory. But what is the problem? How else would you get to know the universe?


Would you rather base your philosophy of life on a collection of largely apocryphal stories that were passed down by word-of-mouthy since the early Bronze age by illiterate nomads, and that were put into writing as late as the 4th century BCE?


Figuring out one's own theories without validation is what leads to such things as superstition and religious fanaticism.


The universe is chaotic only at the quantum level (Quantum Physics). Everything above that follows linear principles - gravity, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, causality (Classical Physics).

The GUT would present a consistently predictable model by which gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong forces could be expressed in the same terms.

By testing and observing. I never have understood the need to have a theory when you go into an experiment, and would avoid it so I could not bias results by the natural desire to be right.



When did I bring religion in here? I question scientific analysis of data in such a manner as to predict one thing with laws based on another thing, or to promote one way of life over another, not to promote religion.



If it did lead to superstition, then one could instead say "Yes, there is something there. I'd like to study what it is - to question and test it." Explore! We don't do enough of that anymore.


Anyway,
My core issue lies with people making law out of theory, and ethics out of law in a manner they have not thought through. Science is becoming a hype. It's becoming commercial.

So you use a "do stuff until something happens" method? How do you determine causality?


When you started this thread in the "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion" forum, instead of the "Computers, Math, Science, and Technology" forum.


Then you have formed an hypothesis - an idea that is testable. The next step is to test it. If the tests validate the hypothesis, then a theory is proposed. Once a theory is proposed, it is submitted for peer review. If the peer review verifies the theory, then it becomes an accepted principle.

If testing falsifies the hypothesis instead, then the hypothesis is either modified or rejected completely, and the testing begins again.

If the review falsifies the theory, then the theory is rejected, and the process begins again with a new hypothesis.

Thus, the Scientific Method is self-correcting - old mistakes are cast aside and replaced by something that is more closely supported by valid material evidence.


When you say "law", are you referring to physical laws or to civil/criminal laws?

Can you cite references?

Can you offer a viable alternative?

The Universe has been found guilty. The jury is still deliberating whether to execute it by Heat Death, Big Crunch, Big Rip …

PS – Don’t hold your breath.

Science is becoming a hype you say... then why are most people not only fairly ignorant of the results and achievements of science, but often completely unaware of the scientific method?

It is both feasible and reasonable.

Certainly we might stumble on some, "the earth is flat," conclusions--but so far the models that we have developed present two important features: they are internally consistent; and they successfully predict events. Now, we must always be prepared to accept contradictory evidence and revisit theories to accommodate that. But the limitation of our observable universe cannot and should not restrict our inquiry into its nature, its origins and it's future.

Fireofthestorm,

You are making the fallacy that the only way to advance is to be perfect. Can you propose a method for how to travel outside this solar system without ever being wrong? If we avoid being wrong at all costs we will never try anything new. The only way to progress is to try, fail, then try again.

Science itself rarely becomes popular. Some—usually greatly distorted—scientific facts do, and, more often than not, people treat them as though they were religious principles to be taken on faith, either embracing them as such, or dismissing them because they conflict with their existing beliefs.

By hype I mean exactlythat people are saying whatever they want is "scientific" or "scientifically proven" - reminds you of the times when people used that arguement to segregate people.
On the other hand, people seem to be "academia snobs" about several things - several progressive agendas are no more logical than conservative views. They just are.

I am frusterated at people claiming superiority when they are not perfect. When they do, they mistake Einstein for a crackpot, and a crackpot for a Hawking. That is what frusterates me about the "scientific" community I've seen around me. *Note: may just be a local issue*

So what you really seem to be complaining about is that people in general have no real understanding of what makes a scientist and what science is all about. Here are some links to websites that may help you in your studies of Science v. Pseudo-Science:

Cosmophobia

The James Randi Educational Foundation

The Rational Wiki - Article on Anti-Science

The Skeptic Project

The Skeptic's Dictionary