Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 08:08 PM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology

 (Read 14629 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     OP - August 07, 2015, 10:58 PM

    From Sean Carroll's blog:

    Quote



    Last week I spent an enjoyable few days in Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands, for a conference on the Philosophy of Cosmology. The slides for all the talks are now online; videos aren’t up yet, but I understand they are forthcoming.

    It was a thought-provoking meeting, but one of my thoughts was: “We don’t really have a well-defined field called Philosophy of Cosmology.” At least, not yet. Talks were given by philosophers and by cosmologists; the philosophers generally gave good talks on the philosophy of physics, while some of the cosmologists gave solid-but-standard talks on cosmology. Some of the other cosmologists tried their hand at philosophy, and I thought those were generally less successful. Which is to be expected — it’s a sign that we need to do more work to set the foundations for this new subdiscipline.

    A big part of defining an area of study is deciding on a set of questions that we all agree are worth thinking about. As a tiny step in that direction, here is my attempt to highlight ten questions — and various sub-questions — that naturally fall under the rubric of Philosophy of Cosmology. They fall under other rubrics as well, of course, as well as featuring significant overlap with each other. So there’s a certain amount of arbitrariness here — suggestions for improvements are welcome.

    Here we go:

    1. 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?
       
    2. 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?
       
    3. 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?
       
    4. 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?

    5. 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?
       
    6. 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?
       
    7. 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?
       
    8. 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?
       

    9. 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?
     
    10. 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?

    Chances are very small that anyone else interested in the field, forced at gunpoint to pick the ten biggest questions, would choose exactly these ten. Such are the wild and wooly early days of any field, when the frontier is unexplored and the conventional wisdom has yet to be settled. Feel free to make suggestions.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #1 - August 07, 2015, 11:23 PM

    Great questions. If someone wrote a book on this, with a chapter for each of these questions, I'd buy it. I may not read it. But I'd buy it.

    Seriously though, popular science writers have tackled trying to speak to the layman about most, if not all, of these questions. I know because I've read those books. But to tie all of these disparate discussions into one banner would be just ace. I'd be frothing to get my copy, for one.

    Hi
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #2 - August 07, 2015, 11:27 PM

    Sean Carroll has to be at the top of my list. Not only is he a brilliant communicator but he has also studied philosophy.
    This means that unlike Krauss and others, he doesn't come across as a twat when discussing the subject.

    If you're interested, read: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #3 - August 07, 2015, 11:48 PM

    Ok, read that article. Krauss' book sounds interesting, regardless of how he comes across. I may get that. I'll try to remember Sean CarrolI also. I may ask you for a reminder at some point?

    Hi
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #4 - August 08, 2015, 01:09 AM

    Sure, I'll remind you. Also, If you want to buy Krauss' book do be aware that the title is just clickbait. If you're buying the book on the expectation that Krauss solves the problem or adds anything significant to the preexisting literature, don't waste your money.

    As David Albert gently explains:


    ....

    The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

    What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
    ...



    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #5 - August 11, 2015, 05:45 PM

    Cosmology and The Constants of Nature (John Barrow)

    Quote
    Lecture from the mini-series "Cosmology and the Constants of Nature" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INdSQ_otxqg

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #6 - August 12, 2015, 12:33 AM

    Great stuff. I'll second Musivore on buying a book containing a chapter on each question.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #7 - August 26, 2015, 06:56 PM

    New book by Carroll.



    The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself

    Caltech physicist and author of the award-winning The Particle at the End of the Universe gives a sweeping new perspective on how human purpose and meaning naturally fit into a scientific worldview.

    This is Sean Carroll's most ambitious book yet: how the deep laws of nature connect to our everyday lives. He has taken us From Eternity to Here and to The Particle at the End of the Universe. Now forThe Big Picture. This is a book that will stand on the shelf alongside the great humanist thinkers from Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan to Daniel Dennett and E.O. Wilson. It is a new synthesis of science and the biggest questions humans ask about life, death, and where we are in the cosmos.

    Readers learn the difference between how the world works at the quantum level, the cosmic level, and the human level; the emergence of causes from underlying laws; and ultimately how human values relate to scientific reality. This tour of, well, everything explains the principles that have guided the scientific revolution from Darwin and Einstein to the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe, but it also shows how an avalanche of discoveries over the past few hundred years has changed the world for us and what we think really matters. As Carroll eloquently demonstrates, our lives are dwarfed by the immensity of the universe and redeemed by our capacity to comprehend it and give it meaning.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #8 - August 26, 2015, 07:11 PM

    Oh yes. This looks like a better version of Stephen Hawking's Grand Design

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #9 - August 26, 2015, 07:14 PM

    Bought the book. Read Hawking's comments about philosophy, threw the book out of my window.
    I found his comments to be pretty funny given that the book was basically an attempt at doing metaphysics.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #10 - August 26, 2015, 07:26 PM

    "Bought the book. Read Hawking's comments about philosophy, threw the book out of my window."

    Ah, but of course.  Wink

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #11 - August 26, 2015, 07:30 PM

    Had he been present, I would've thrown Hawking out of the window, too.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #12 - August 26, 2015, 07:45 PM

    But like seriously,Hawking makes several assumptions such as the necessity of mathematics in scientific activity. Case in point: M-theory.

    I'll donate my testicles to research if someone can show how the above isn't an issue contained within the philosophy of science.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR8mo6E6ulg

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #13 - September 02, 2015, 02:41 AM

    But like seriously,Hawking makes several assumptions such as the necessity of mathematics in scientific activity. Case in point: M-theory.

    I'll donate my testicles to research if someone can show how the above isn't an issue contained within the philosophy of science.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR8mo6E6ulg


    The philosophy of science isnt science, it is its own standalone field, contemporary science however is essentially math applied to the universe; i mean just open up every physics book, its the application of math to the world.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #14 - September 02, 2015, 02:43 AM

    Sure, I'll remind you. Also, If you want to buy Krauss' book do be aware that the title is just clickbait. If you're buying the book on the expectation that Krauss solves the problem or adds anything significant to the preexisting literature, don't waste your money.

    As David Albert gently explains:




    That sounds like a chain of infinite regress; demanding a cause for everything except god, for all we know the quantum field and its laws may be eternal.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #15 - September 02, 2015, 02:45 AM

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UxvycpqYo

    Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[3][4] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real. Tegmark elaborates the MUH into the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH), which posits that all computable mathematical structures (in Gödel's sense) exist.[5]

    The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it posits the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

    Tegmark claims that the hypothesis has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out. Thus, he reasons, it is preferred over other theories-of-everything by Occam's Razor. He suggests conscious experience would take the form of mathematical "self-aware substructures" that exist in a physically "real" world.

    The hypothesis is related to the anthropic principle and to Tegmark's categorization of four levels of the multiverse.[6]

    Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #16 - August 30, 2016, 09:19 PM

    That sounds like a chain of infinite regress; demanding a cause for everything except god, for all we know the quantum field and its laws may be eternal.



    Wrong

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #17 - August 30, 2016, 09:22 PM

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UxvycpqYo

    Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[3][4] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real. Tegmark elaborates the MUH into the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH), which posits that all computable mathematical structures (in Gödel's sense) exist.[5]

    The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it posits the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

    Tegmark claims that the hypothesis has no free parameters and is not observationally ruled out. Thus, he reasons, it is preferred over other theories-of-everything by Occam's Razor. He suggests conscious experience would take the form of mathematical "self-aware substructures" that exist in a physically "real" world.

    The hypothesis is related to the anthropic principle and to Tegmark's categorization of four levels of the multiverse.[6]

    Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis



    Poor hypothesis, full of holes.



    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #18 - August 30, 2016, 09:23 PM

    Sorry I'm a year late btw. I was absent from the forum and just remembered this thread now.

    If you want to know why you are/were wrong then feel free to ask.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #19 - August 30, 2016, 09:25 PM

    The philosophy of science isnt science, it is its own standalone field, contemporary science however is essentially math applied to the universe; i mean just open up every physics book, its the application of math to the world.


    With reference to the first part - I know? Why are you telling me things that I've clearly demonstrated knowledge of already?

    Wrt the second part- no.  Math works beautifully with physics due to the reducibility of the type of structures that physicists study. Physics can identify general laws. And guess what, math is pretty fucking good for describing general laws.

    This ain't the case for the relationship between math and biology, math and neuroscience, math and economics etc...

    You seem to be coming from a position of naive Mathematical Platonism.

    The pattern here is that the further away we move from physics, the less potent mathematics is.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #20 - August 30, 2016, 09:41 PM

    Um, I'd just say the further we move away from Physics the more any given thing is based on emergent properties of things we don't fully understand, hence it's difficulty with being mathematically modeled.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #21 - August 30, 2016, 09:47 PM

    Very well put.

    It's also because the further away we move from the "building blocks", the more complex the system becomes in terms of non-linearities.

    This is essentially why the economy is such a clusterfuck to predict.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #22 - August 30, 2016, 09:51 PM

    I can disprove any economics theory in 4 words.

    "Humans don't behave rationally."

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #23 - August 30, 2016, 09:55 PM

    That wouldn't "disprove" anything in behavioural economics lmao. It wouldn't do much for development econ either. Or industrial economics.

    Bounded rationality is also an economic response to orthodox rationality. Rationality in econ in generally taken to mean the interdependence of the past, present and future in the decision making progress.

    Only dumb theories, mainly found in neoclassical economics (coincidentally, this is also where the overt mathematisation of economics is apparent) adhere to a type of rationality which implies that people know everything a la homo economicus.

    Source: have studied under economists who hate economics. One is actually an international expert in his field, so yeah, an expert that hates his discipline.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #24 - August 30, 2016, 09:58 PM

    Okay, how do these theories account for people behaving in unpredictable ways?

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #25 - August 30, 2016, 09:59 PM

    Rationality in econ in generally taken to mean the interdependence of the past, present and future in the decision making progress.


    Whose decision making process are we talking about?

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #26 - August 30, 2016, 10:02 PM

    Well, behavioural economics starts from the assumption that psychology must be taken into account. People aren't rational maximisers and are subject to cognitive bias. The job is then to explain the failings of orthodox theory.

    Development econ- econometrics and empirical evidence. Impact of disasters on economies, globalisation, poverty etc...

    Not really concerned with standard theory as such.

    Industrial - existence of asymmetric information, price discrimination, arbitrage, marketing etc..

    On phone atm and cba to type too much. HTH

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #27 - August 30, 2016, 10:03 PM

    Whose decision making process are we talking about?


    It's model dependent.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #28 - August 30, 2016, 10:10 PM

    Sorry, can't say I know too much about this stuff. You seem to have a fascination with it though.

    I'll be honest, I'm rarely a fan of the social sciences in general. Honestly, things don't seem very good for "hard sciences" either these days in the US, so yeah.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Ten Questions for the Philosophy of Cosmology
     Reply #29 - August 30, 2016, 10:14 PM

    Eh, each to their own.

    I'm not a fan of biology and stuff due to all the statistical bullshit in the field. Same with neuroscience. Makes me wonder how much of the so called "results" would hold under true statistical scrutiny. And by "true", I don't mean a person who sits in the lab crunching random numbers and navigating through various statistical tables. iERA would have a field day if they ever found this post.

    My distaste for it is probably something I have to work on, though I guess everyone is a dick in their own unique way.

    Gonna sleep soon, speak soon.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »