• In total there are 23 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 23 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... cosmology/
In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned? When can we say that physical parameters (cosmological constant, scale of electroweak symmetry breaking) or initial conditions are “unnatural”? What sets the appropriate measure with respect to which we judge naturalness of physical and cosmological parameters? Is there an explanation for cosmological coincidences such as the approximate equality between the density of matter and vacuum energy? Does inflation solve these problems, or exacerbate them? What conclusions should we draw from the existence of fine-tuning?

How is the arrow of time related to the special state of the early universe? What is the best way to formulate the past hypothesis (the early universe was in a low entropy state) and the statistical postulate (uniform distribution within macrostates)? Can the early state be explained as a generic feature of dynamical processes, or is it associated with a specific quantum state of the universe, or should it be understood as a separate law of nature? In what way, if any, does the special early state help explain the temporal asymmetries of memory, causality, and quantum measurement?

What is the proper role of the anthropic principle? Can anthropic reasoning be used to make reliable predictions? How do we define the appropriate reference class of observers? Given such a class, is there any reason to think of ourselves as “typical” within it? Does the prediction of freak observers (Boltzmann Brains) count as evidence against a cosmological scenario?

What part should unobservable realms play in cosmological models? Does cosmic evolution naturally generate pocket universes, baby universes, or many branches of the wave function? Are other “universes” part of science if they can never be observed? How do we evaluate such models, and does the traditional process of scientific theory choice need to be adapted to account for non-falsifiable predictions? How confident can we ever be in early-universe scenarios such as inflation?

What is the quantum state of the universe, and how does it evolve? Is there a unique prescription for calculating the wave function of the universe? Under what conditions are different parts of the quantum state “real,” in the sense that observers within them should be counted? What aspects of cosmology depend on competing formulations of quantum mechanics (Everett, dynamical collapse, hidden variables, etc.)? Do quantum fluctuations happen in equilibrium? What role does decoherence play in cosmic evolution? How does do quantum and classical probabilities arise in cosmological predictions? What defines classical histories within the quantum state?

Are space and time emergent or fundamental? Is quantum gravity a theory of quantized spacetime, or is spacetime only an approximation valid in a certain regime? What are the fundamental degrees of freedom? Is there a well-defined Hilbert space for the universe, and what is its dimensionality? Is time evolution fundamental, or does time emerge from correlations within a static state?

What is the role of infinity in cosmology? Can the universe be infinitely big? Are the fundamental laws ultimate discrete? Can there be an essential difference between “infinite” and “really big”? Can the arrow of time be explained if the universe has an infinite amount of room in which to evolve? Are there preferred ways to compare infinitely big subsets of an infinite space of states?

Can the universe have a beginning, or can it be eternal? Does a universe with a first moment require a cause or deeper explanation? Are there reasons why there is something rather than nothing? Can the universe be cyclic, with a consistent arrow of time? Could it be eternal and statistically symmetric around some moment of lowest entropy?

How do physical laws and causality apply to the universe as a whole? Can laws be said to change or evolve? Does the universe as a whole maximize some interesting quantity such as simplicity, goodness, interestingness, or fecundity? Should laws be understood as governing/generative entities, or are they just a convenient way to compactly represent a large number of facts? Is the universe complete in itself, or does it require external factors to sustain it? Do the laws of physics require ultimate explanations, or can they simply be?

How do complex structures and order come into existence and evolve? Is complexity a transient phenomenon that depends on entropy generation? Are there general principles governing physical, biological, and psychological complexity? Is the appearance of life likely or inevitable? Does consciousness play a central role in accounting for the universe?
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

We sure need to attract more science lovers.
User avatar
Movie Nerd
Intelligent
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:36 am
9
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

If I may ask, Dexter, what is your stance on evolution? Just curious.
I am just your typical movie nerd, postcard collector and aspiring writer.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

Thanks Dexter, I enjoyed reading this, and some of the comments at the link. I do not have detailed understanding of big bang cosmology to the level of physics courses, although I support mainstream scientific consensus and have read fairly widely in popular scientific literature, and I claim my views are rational and scientific.

Overall, I could not understand why the author used the term ‘philosophy’, since it seems to me that most of the questions are subjects either for pure science or for vacuous theological speculation than of anything deserving the label of love of wisdom. Cosmology is viewed in the modern scientific framework as seeking only to answer the scientific question ‘what is the universe?’. That of course is a massive and central topic. But when we compare this to traditional cosmology, we find that a traditional question ‘how do we connect to the universe?’ is ruled out of order by the acolytes of physics on grounds that it is religious and ethical, not physical.

But still it was surprising to me to find a number of religious questions in this supposedly philosophical list.

So the first question I would pose for cosmology is ‘should cosmology as a discipline be restricted to matters that can be answered by astrophysics?’ The second question I would pose is ‘how can we define philosophical questions in cosmology that are not matters of vacuous theological speculation?’ And third, ‘how did cosmology influence primitive myth, and how has this influence evolved through history?’
Dexter wrote: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... cosmology/
In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned? When can we say that physical parameters (cosmological constant, scale of electroweak symmetry breaking) or initial conditions are “unnatural”? What sets the appropriate measure with respect to which we judge naturalness of physical and cosmological parameters? Is there an explanation for cosmological coincidences such as the approximate equality between the density of matter and vacuum energy? Does inflation solve these problems, or exacerbate them? What conclusions should we draw from the existence of fine-tuning?
Finetuning is a more a question for astrophysics than philosophy, except when it comes to evidence-free metaphysical speculation. This term “unnatural”, with its metaphysical connotation of “supernatural” is a really surprising word to see from a scientist. It amounts to asking if we need a supernatural God to justify the inability to understand how the universe hangs together. The word ‘unnatural’ belongs in theology, not philosophy.
How is the arrow of time related to the special state of the early universe? What is the best way to formulate the past hypothesis (the early universe was in a low entropy state) and the statistical postulate (uniform distribution within macrostates)? Can the early state be explained as a generic feature of dynamical processes, or is it associated with a specific quantum state of the universe, or should it be understood as a separate law of nature? In what way, if any, does the special early state help explain the temporal asymmetries of memory, causality, and quantum measurement?
No philosophy there that I can see, just physics. Why you would want to invoke the cosmic inflation period to explain why we don’t remember the future, which seems to be the premise of the final question, is beyond me.

What is the proper role of the anthropic principle? Can anthropic reasoning be used to make reliable predictions? How do we define the appropriate reference class of observers? Given such a class, is there any reason to think of ourselves as “typical” within it? Does the prediction of freak observers (Boltzmann Brains) count as evidence against a cosmological scenario?
As I recall, the weak anthropic principle that the laws of physics must be such as to permit the evolution of human intelligence, was used by Fred Hoyle to deduce the process for the stellar formation of carbon. So it has a track record. But the strong anthropic principle is just belief in God.

What part should unobservable realms play in cosmological models? Does cosmic evolution naturally generate pocket universes, baby universes, or many branches of the wave function? Are other “universes” part of science if they can never be observed? How do we evaluate such models, and does the traditional process of scientific theory choice need to be adapted to account for non-falsifiable predictions? How confident can we ever be in early-universe scenarios such as inflation?
None, no, no, can’t, no, quite.

What is the quantum state of the universe, and how does it evolve? Is there a unique prescription for calculating the wave function of the universe? Under what conditions are different parts of the quantum state “real,” in the sense that observers within them should be counted? What aspects of cosmology depend on competing formulations of quantum mechanics (Everett, dynamical collapse, hidden variables, etc.)? Do quantum fluctuations happen in equilibrium? What role does decoherence play in cosmic evolution? How does do quantum and classical probabilities arise in cosmological predictions? What defines classical histories within the quantum state?
These are all problems in physics except the word ‘real’, which is a problem in metaphysics. How can an observer be within a quantum state?

Are space and time emergent or fundamental? Is quantum gravity a theory of quantized spacetime, or is spacetime only an approximation valid in a certain regime? What are the fundamental degrees of freedom? Is there a well-defined Hilbert space for the universe, and what is its dimensionality? Is time evolution fundamental, or does time emerge from correlations within a static state?
I don’t understand why ‘emergent’ and ‘fundamental’ are inconsistent. The rest looks like science, not philosophy.

What is the role of infinity in cosmology? Can the universe be infinitely big? Are the fundamental laws ultimate discrete? Can there be an essential difference between “infinite” and “really big”? Can the arrow of time be explained if the universe has an infinite amount of room in which to evolve? Are there preferred ways to compare infinitely big subsets of an infinite space of states?
None, dunno, doubt it, yes, que?, no.

Can the universe have a beginning, or can it be eternal? Does a universe with a first moment require a cause or deeper explanation? Are there reasons why there is something rather than nothing? Can the universe be cyclic, with a consistent arrow of time? Could it be eternal and statistically symmetric around some moment of lowest entropy?
These were all answered allegedly by Buddha more than two millennia ago, when he equated such unanswerable questions to farting. This is pure metaphysical theology with no hope of achieving anything useful or relevant. It is not philosophy.

How do physical laws and causality apply to the universe as a whole? Can laws be said to change or evolve? Does the universe as a whole maximize some interesting quantity such as simplicity, goodness, interestingness, or fecundity? Should laws be understood as governing/generative entities, or are they just a convenient way to compactly represent a large number of facts? Is the universe complete in itself, or does it require external factors to sustain it? Do the laws of physics require ultimate explanations, or can they simply be?
It appears that laws and causality apply consistently as far as we can tell. There really is no point in this question until there is real evidence of possible inconsistency, which would undermine a major basic assumption of scientific method. There is no evidence of physical laws changing. This ‘simplicity, goodness, interestingness, or fecundity’ question is a remarkable piece of Platonic idealism, to which I am emotionally sympathetic, but which seems a ridiculous thing to ask about the universe as a whole. That is why I suggest we should consider a regional cosmology, considering the universe as it relates to humanity, and ask if there are factors at play that are intrinsically good for humanity. Expanding beyond that already unwieldy scale is nothing but metaphysical speculation with no possible content. The question about laws as entities or representations is pure semantics with no content. Querying ‘external factors’ is just asking if God exists. A theory of everything would reconcile the inconsistency between relativity and quantum theory, as a basis for an ultimate explanation of the laws of physics.

How do complex structures and order come into existence and evolve? Is complexity a transient phenomenon that depends on entropy generation? Are there general principles governing physical, biological, and psychological complexity? Is the appearance of life likely or inevitable? Does consciousness play a central role in accounting for the universe?
Complexity is a product of energy in a finite system, and is counter-entropic. Some evolutionary principles describing the behaviour of matter serve as general principles for complexity. The question about the likelihood of life is so vague as to be near meaningless. Of course consciousness plays a central role in accounting, since to account requires that we represent in symbolic language, and that involves consciousness. But I expect the author intended a much more vague meaning of account.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

Movie Nerd wrote:If I may ask, Dexter, what is your stance on evolution? Just curious
What is your stance on the theory of thermodynamics?
User avatar
Dexter

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1787
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
13
Has thanked: 144 times
Been thanked: 712 times
United States of America

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

Movie Nerd wrote:If I may ask, Dexter, what is your stance on evolution? Just curious.
Evolution is a fact, as Stephen Jay Gould defined it: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

Unread post

In what sense, if any, is the universe fine-tuned? When can we say that physical parameters (cosmological constant, scale of electroweak symmetry breaking) or initial conditions are “unnatural”? What sets the appropriate measure with respect to which we judge naturalness of physical and cosmological parameters? Is there an explanation for cosmological coincidences such as the approximate equality between the density of matter and vacuum energy? Does inflation solve these problems, or exacerbate them? What conclusions should we draw from the existence of fine-tuning?

This seems to be set up as a question really asking, "What was done to ensure that we are/ would be here?"

The real question about what we see as fine tuning is whether things are capable of being any different. And if they are capable of being different, then this becomes a question of statistics. One thing is true, however. In order for us to have evolved the way we are the universe could not have been drastically different. That doesn't mean anything was changed SO THAT we would be here. It means we are here because things are right for the existence of things like ourselves. In variations of the cosmic parameters where we would not be possible we don't exist.

And if it exists that means it's natural. It's the kind of thing possible in our universe. Not supernatural. How do i know? Because it is right there... existing in our universe. That's what it means to be natural.

How is the arrow of time related to the special state of the early universe? What is the best way to formulate the past hypothesis (the early universe was in a low entropy state) and the statistical postulate (uniform distribution within macrostates)? Can the early state be explained as a generic feature of dynamical processes, or is it associated with a specific quantum state of the universe, or should it be understood as a separate law of nature? In what way, if any, does the special early state help explain the temporal asymmetries of memory, causality, and quantum measurement?
Time has a directedness because there is a directedness to the dispersal of energy from the big bang. Everything was once in one spot, and now it's spreading out and getting more dilute. That process will continue and it is through that constant that we measure time. This is what time IS measuring. This all comes from statistics as well. Most everything does, by the way, since all systems we are familiar with are built of tiny particles by the trillions interacting with eachother in simple ways in great numbers.

We remember the past but not the future because interactions that have occurred already leave an impact on the particles that had those interactions through changes in energy and configuration. Events that have not yet occurred have not yet interacted with those particles and so cannot yet have left a lasting impact on them in the form of changing the energy levels, or configurations of those particles.


What is the proper role of the anthropic principle? Can anthropic reasoning be used to make reliable predictions? How do we define the appropriate reference class of observers? Given such a class, is there any reason to think of ourselves as “typical” within it? Does the prediction of freak observers (Boltzmann Brains) count as evidence against a cosmological scenario?

Weak anthropic principle is as i outlined above where the fact that we exist should mean that we ought not be surprised the universe is built in such a way that allows us to exist. If it were different, we wouldn't exist and that's not a surprise either.

An ice cube should not be surprised to find itself in the cold, nor expect to be born in lava.

The strong anthropic pcinciple says that there are so many possible configurations, the fact that we exist means things must have been tweeked to ensure we would be here. Or in other words, we are so special a god must have made the universe so that we could be here.

But the ice cube can only exist where it's cold. That doesn't mean there aren't volcanos out there, and in fact we ought to expect there are plenty of hot places where ice cubes can't form. It would be a stronger argument for the strong anthropic principle if we found we exist in a place that would not allow us to exist.

For instance, instead of being composed exactly of the same material we see all around us in the earth and stars, we were composed of some material that existed nowhere else and was impossible to get from natural processes. That would argue much more strongly for some kind of intervention.


What part should unobservable realms play in cosmological models? Does cosmic evolution naturally generate pocket universes, baby universes, or many branches of the wave function? Are other “universes” part of science if they can never be observed? How do we evaluate such models, and does the traditional process of scientific theory choice need to be adapted to account for non-falsifiable predictions? How confident can we ever be in early-universe scenarios such as inflation?

Un observable realms are not in of themselves un-scientific. They should be built on sound findings in our observations and extended to likely distant vistas. for instance what does the surface of europa look like? We've seen it from space, but what would it look like to stand on it?

We can make great models of what that would be like even through we've never been there because we can extrapolate from our experiences where we HAVE been, like the earth and the moon. What about other stars where we haven't yet seen any planets or moons? How can we confidently say there are planets and moons around those stars?

Because we know there are planets and moons around our star, and that our star is not special. And we've seen hundreds and hundreds of planets around other stars, and there is no reason to suspect that the ones we have observed are outliers in any sense, so other stars SHOULD have planets and moons just like ours, differing in quantitativly, not qualitativly.

And we should expect there are galaxies beyond our light cone filled with stars like our own with planets like our own and moons orbiting those planets because that's what we are seeing everywhere else. These are completely un-observable, yet there is every reason to suggest they exist.


Maybe i'll dig into some of this other stuff later...
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”