Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[UniversalAlien]

For the purpose of this question I am assuming one single known universe. We have many scientific facts and theories of the nature of this universe as to energy, matter, time and space. Some of the scientific theories have over the centuries changed and have changed our known perception of this universe. Einstein who gave us relativity and E=MC2 sought a 'unified field theory' that would encompass all known physical reality. As far as I know he did not achieve this and to date there is no provable theory that would unify all physical existence. We continue to observe an ever changing universe but observe it to be changing in a continuous manner {expanding universe}; But is it? Is the universe always and continuously moving in an even and exact manner? Can the laws of science and the reality now known be relied upon as an absolute truth and is the existent real world definable in an absolute sense?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If the Universe was completely balanced and consistent, wouldn't there thus be total entropy and there would be no planets, no solar systems and no life?

Your argument seems to make use of the fact that the universe is consistently balanced around averages (e.g. the average density in any trillion-light-year-cube or the average rate of separation between any two given points) but that 'fact' is a tautology since that's what it means to take an average.

Also, your assumption seems to answer some of your questions. You assume a static one-world universe and then ask questions whose answers follow from that. Supposing that the universal physical laws are something that are not actually universal of all reality is to suppose that there is a multiverse of some sort.

[UniversalAlien]

To clarify what I am trying to ask: What I am trying to say is are the laws of physics and science valid and consistent throughout the known {and unknown} universe and intentionally excluding the multiverse and leaving it as a separate issue. Of course physics and science, without anything to indicate otherwise, would assume that the known universe is consistent and hence known to be so. The reason for the question is more than a simple philosophical exercise in rhetoric. I am a big sci-fi fan and therefor like to test sci-fi speculation to see if it might be valid. So what I am speculating on is the logic of scientific laws being consistent throughout the universe. If they are we are limited to a very small planet in a huge galaxy - But if not, if time, space, and dimension might have different validity at different times or in different places then speculative concepts such as faster than speed of light travel, etc. might be possible.

[Stanley Huang]

UniversalAlien said: "To clarify what I am trying to ask: What I am trying to say is are the laws of physics and science valid and consistent throughout the known {and unknown} universe and intentionally excluding the multiverse and leaving it as a separate issue."

That may not be true. Because the natural law from the microscopic world may be different to the natural law from the universe in a large scale. So different universes may have different natural laws, so this is why the Quantumn scientists talked about a natural law different to what Einstein was saying.

If different universes have different natural laws, then, the laws of one universe may influence the laws of another universe, so the universe may not be static.

[UniversalAlien]

UniversalAlien said: "To clarify what I am trying to ask: What I am trying to say is are the laws of physics and science valid and consistent throughout the known {and unknown} universe and intentionally excluding the multiverse and leaving it as a separate issue."

That may not be true. Because the natural law from the microscopic world may be different to the natural law from the universe in a large scale. So different universes may have different natural laws, so this is why the Quantumn scientists talked about a natural law different to what Einstein was saying.

If different universes have different natural laws, then, the laws of one universe may influence the laws of another universe, so the universe may not be static.

That I might agree with. So let us bring Quantum theory and the multiverse into the equation. So let us say in another universe faster than light travel is possible, how could you then transfer this possibility to this universe? What if matter and the physics of this other universe is different? How could you make it apply here? Even if we could observe this other universe {a big if}, it is conceivable that those rules in that universe are not transferable to this one. The balance of this universe may not allow other physical laws from other universes entry into the paradigm of this one. But who knows? Certainly Quantum Mechanics opens a new paradigm of thought. Will it open physical doors for us as well? Or are we still stuck in the limited part of our current universe?

[Stanley Huang]

Can we use what we see in this universe to draw a picture what are the possibilities in another universe?

Now, even if our technology cannot experiment it, but I feel it is interesting.

[UniversalAlien]

Can we use what we see in this universe to draw a picture what are the possibilities in another universe?

Now, even if our technology cannot experiment it, but I feel it is interesting.

The thing is we could "use what we see in this universe to draw a picture what are the possibilities in another universe". The problem is what if the other universe is so different we can not comprehend or see it? How could we see things happening in an alternative universe where the events unfolding were outside the physical laws we are accustomed to seeing and calculating in this universe?

[Stanley Huang]

If there is another universe that you cannot see, is that still a universe?

So to me, even if there is another universe that we have not been, at least, if we are able to fly to that place, at least we must be able to see it if we can reach it, otherwise a thing that we cannot see may not be universe anymore.

[UniversalAlien]

If there is another universe that you cannot see, is that still a universe?

So to me, even if there is another universe that we have not been, at least, if we are able to fly to that place, at least we must be able to see it if we can reach it, otherwise a thing that we cannot see may not be universe anymore.

That might be true. It is a basic philosophical and/or mystical question. Does anything exist if we can not see it, comprehend, and/or calculate it. I am not sure BUT I would think that much exists that we can not see, comprehend, and/or calculate. That is my opinion.

[Stanley Huang]

Maybe the dark matter, that scientists say that many things that we cannot see are dark matters may exist.

[UniversalAlien]

Maybe the dark matter, that scientists say that many things that we cannot see are dark matters may exist.

According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.

So this is only a possibility at this time. Indications are that it exists but until you know exactly what it is it must still be consedered as mystical and occult - but then again all existence might always be mystical, In oriental religions it may all be illusory. We are part of what we see. I don't know if it is possible to perceive this or any other universe without us in it and as part ot it. So what is real? And to answer my original question: "Is the Universe always Balanced and consistent?" Only to the extent that we are balanced and consistent.

[Stanley Huang]

Sometimes, you can indirectly observe an event happening, just like time, if time exists, it may just be an indirect observation of what we see.

Black hole, we cannot see black hole. But only from what we can see, that black hole may be possible to exist.

So there is indirection observation, but the metaphysical question is: Does the external world exist?

I do not know. To me, as a scientist, I can say that what will happen if a thing exists, but I cannot say whether or not is there an external world. I can use the 'if' word, but I cannot make an metaphysical assertion.