You say the laws of nature cannot force us to do something, and I agree. Laws of nature are not causal in themselves.
Exactly. Laws of nature describe how the regularities of the objects under observation behave, i.e. along which pathways causality works for these objects.
However laws of nature (the way things seem to work) do proscibe HOW some things must be done. A square peg will fit in a square hole, but not in a round hole.
I do not quite understand you here. HOW some things must be done? By whom? To who?
Yeah, that was not well constructed. I was talking about non-sentient (inanimate) objects and their specific behavior dictated by certain conditions, such as in chemical reactions and formation of elements. With the word "must" I meant hard determnism, as opposed to animate objects which have more freedom in possible (re)actions (compatibilism?).
Which brings to mind that, if inanimate objects had brains, their existence would be hell. But animals and some plants require a brain or at least sensory data processing, even if only for movement. Walking for humans involves a "controlled" falling forward. We can see the learning process in the first steps by an infant and its ultimate refinement in the explosive start of a sprinter. Without any form of (pseudo) sentient control, we would not be able to move. A rock can only roll down a hill, humans can walk up and down that same hill, depending on our wishes. Some flowering plants have the ability to follow the sun by phototropism, which triggers hydraulic action (the plant's version of muscle power), The Venus Fly Trap uses trigger hairs to activate its hydraulic closing system.
Is that a little better?
Has anyone ever suggested that “natural selction” is a pseudo intelligent process? Natural laws allow for infinite variety, from which the function of natural selection is not unlike a long term (billions of year) pseudo-intelligent data processing function. With few exceptions, all species living today are perfectly adapted, as they logically “must” have to be here today.
This pseudo sentience is the root of all religious and philosophical debates, IMO. It begs the question “why”. And IMHO, my answer would be, “because it was mathematically and logically possible”. The very concept of time itself is moot if there is no inevitable and eventual change.
Has anyone ever suggested that "natural selction" is a pseudo intelligent process? Natural laws allow for infinite variety, from which the function of natural selection is not unlike a long term (billions of year) pseudo-intelligent data processing function. With few exceptions, all species living today are perfectly adapted, as they logically "must" have to be here today.
This pseudo sentience is the root of all religious and philosophical debates, IMO. It begs the question "why". And IMHO, my answer would be, "because it was mathematically and logically possible". The very concept of time itself is moot if there is no inevitable and eventual change.
My only objection, so far, is your use of the word "Perfectly". I would prefer that you used "well Enough" as in each species has evolved to survive and reproduce in their environment. Perfectly, seems to imply that there could be no improvement, and that would seem to imply that evolution was at a stand still. FYI, I do understand the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" as applied to evolution.
Yeah, that was not well constructed. I was talking about non-sentient (inanimate) objects and their specific behavior dictated by certain conditions, such as in chemical reactions and formation of elements. With the word "must" I meant hard determnism, as opposed to animate objects which have more freedom in possible (re)actions (compatibilism?).
No, that's the point: laws of nature do not 'dictate'. Laws of nature do nothing. They are our descriptions of how the world develops.
With 'hard determinism', one usually means that determinism does not allow for any meaningful definition of free will, and that we should get rid of the idea of free will altogether, including its correlate responsibility.
Has anyone ever suggested that "natural selction" is a pseudo intelligent process? Natural laws allow for infinite variety, from which the function of natural selection is not unlike a long term (billions of year) pseudo-intelligent data processing function. With few exceptions, all species living today are perfectly adapted, as they logically "must" have to be here today.
This pseudo sentience is the root of all religious and philosophical debates, IMO. It begs the question "why". And IMHO, my answer would be, "because it was mathematically and logically possible". The very concept of time itself is moot if there is no inevitable and eventual change.
I have to disagree with pretty much all of this.
Natural selection is not intelligent in any sense, and is not the only driver of evolution. It may not even be the main driver.
All species are NOT "perfectly adapted," and examples of horrid "design" abound. Most species are just good enough to get by.
A lot of evolution, maybe most of it, is powered by random genetic drift, with no selection or adaptation involved. That's what the evidence shows, anyway.
...
p.s. Queens Gambit is my favorite opening. It trades a pawn for positional advantage, very early in the game.
I like setting up early with the Stalin Defense, in a first game with an opponent. (It helps me, at least make a go of it, with superior players, and gives less advanced players a good chance to get to a mid-game.)
I am really interested in hearing responses to this proposition. Hehe, "hearing" text is one of those confusing semantic metaphors.... :-)
2 points that come to mind, first during the superluminal expansion it was my understanding that matter was not moving faster than light through space but space was expanding and carrying matter with it. It seems that space itself is not restricted by the speed limit of c.
That was the point. The limitation of "c" was not in effect yet at that time. It emerged along with the formation of particles, which were non-existent prior to that time. The symmetry breaking epoch? I am on thin ice here, but I believe that Tachyons are exempt from the restriction of "c" and do not exist in our dimensional reality. Perhaps as yet unknown natural laws permit or restrict their movemen as well..
I wasn't suggesting that c wasn't in effect, but that it didn't apply to space expanding, but only to matter moving through space, there is a distinction.
I believe that c applies to everything that exists in our universe, and if it can be detected here, then it exists in our universe, and c does apply.
I am really interested in hearing responses to this proposition. Hehe, "hearing" text is one of those confusing semantic metaphors.... :-)
2 points that come to mind, first during the superluminal expansion it was my understanding that matter was not moving faster than light through space but space was expanding and carrying matter with it. It seems that space itself is not restricted by the speed limit of c.
That was the point. The limitation of "c" was not in effect yet at that time. It emerged along with the formation of particles, which were non-existent prior to that time. The symmetry breaking epoch? I am on thin ice here, but I believe that Tachyons are exempt from the restriction of "c" and do not exist in our dimensional reality. Perhaps as yet unknown natural laws permit or restrict their movemen as well..
I wasn't suggesting that c wasn't in effect, but that it didn't apply to space expanding, but only to matter moving through space, there is a distinction.
I believe that c applies to everything that exists in our universe, and if it can be detected here, then it exists in our universe, and c does apply.
Right, but expansion IS movement. And FTL expansion could not happen if "c" was in effect at that time. And for some theoretical particles "c" is NOT a limitation. Tachyons are by definition FTL. Thus (if they do exist), they must exist in a different dimension from our 4, where "c" is NOT a limitation.
We always speak of "inside" the universe. I am not arguing against mainstream science. We know what we know. But we know nothing about "outside" the expanding universe, other than that it is permissive of FTL expansion.
If the universe is expanding, there must be an external permissive condition which allows for such expansion (which could be an infinity of nothing). I have never heard of an unlimited expansion in a finite space. Nor have I heard that our universe is already infinitely large. If it were, why the need for expansion (at any speed)?
You see what I am driving at. I am venturing in woo territory, as no one really knows what is beyond our universe.
But logically, from my understanding of Ockham, the simplest way to explain FTL expansion is that "c" is not in effect outside our 4 dimensional spacetime. Which makes perfect sense, because there cannot be physical particles outside our spacetime.
Why are we theorizing 11 dimensions? Seems mainstream science does allow for other conditions in 7 other dimensions. Is there a compelling reason to assume that "c" is an absolute property of all possible dimensional configurations? If we are absolutely sure, then why even bother with tachyons, which by definition do not answer to "c". Can't have it both ways.
Don't forget, during initial expansion physical particles were not formed yet. IOW, our concept of a vacuum is based on our knowledge of spacetime, which already includes particles (background radiation, etc). As far as we (I) know, "c" applies to particles in (what we call) a vacuum. But we are not able to create a pure vacuum or even measure it, because our interference would break symmetry. Thus we really don't know if in some hierarchical higher dimension FTL is normal.
Has anyone ever suggested that "natural selction" is a pseudo intelligent process? Natural laws allow for infinite variety, from which the function of natural selection is not unlike a long term (billions of year) pseudo-intelligent data processing function. With few exceptions, all species living today are perfectly adapted, as they logically "must" have to be here today.
This pseudo sentience is the root of all religious and philosophical debates, IMO. It begs the question "why". And IMHO, my answer would be, "because it was mathematically and logically possible". The very concept of time itself is moot if there is no inevitable and eventual change.
My only objection, so far, is your use of the word "Perfectly". I would prefer that you used "well Enough" as in each species has evolved to survive and reproduce in their environment. Perfectly, seems to imply that there could be no improvement, and that would seem to imply that evolution was at a stand still. FYI, I do understand the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" as applied to evolution.
You are right, we are a work in progress. I did speak in a general sense and qualified the statement with "with exceptions".
In fact I can cite the Silvery Salamander as a doomed "dead end" in evolution of that species. While the female does seek a mate (from a different, but related species}, it is unable to accept that male's sperm and all offspring is an identical clone of its mother. There are a few dozen specimen left in a few small ponds in the US and are highly protected due to their vulnerability from lack of variety. There are other examples of evolutionary dead-ends, which only survived by pure luck and isolation.
Right, but expansion IS movement. And FTL expansion could not happen if "c" was in effect at that time. And for some theoretical particles "c" is NOT a limitation. Tachyons are by definition FTL. Thus (if they do exist), they must exist in a different dimension from our 4, where "c" is NOT a limitation..
Just to be accurate, tachyons are hypothetical particles that exist in our 3 spatial + 1 time dimensional space, however they travel along world-lines that are space-like, not time-like like other particles and ourselves.
Special Relativity forbids objects travelling slower than light-speed, c, to actually achieve c and surpass it; tachyons if they exist would always travel faster than c and could not slow down to c or below it.
They have been looked for and in September 2011, it was reported at CERN that a tau neutrino had travelled faster than the speed of light; however it seems now that they hadn't synchronised their clocks properly!
They have been looked for and in September 2011, it was reported at CERN that a tau neutrino had travelled faster than the speed of light; however it seems now that they hadn't synchronised their clocks properly!
Wow! Who in their right mind would trust a scientist that didn't know how to set their wrist watch. (just kidding).
Right, but expansion IS movement. And FTL expansion could not happen if "c" was in effect at that time. And for some theoretical particles "c" is NOT a limitation. Tachyons are by definition FTL. Thus (if they do exist), they must exist in a different dimension from our 4, where "c" is NOT a limitation..
Just to be accurate, tachyons are hypothetical particles that exist in our 3 spatial + 1 time dimensional space, however they travel along world-lines that are space-like, not time-like like other particles and ourselves.
Thanks for that explanation.
However, if tachyons do exist and do not travel in all 4 dimensions (which make up our reality), my observation is not necessarily incorrect. What is space without time? According to GR, one cannot exist without the other. How then can a tachyons exist at all, if not in 4D (3+1) spacetime?
Special Relativity forbids objects travelling slower than light-speed, c, to actually achieve c and surpass it; tachyons if they exist would always travel faster than c and could not slow down to c or below it.
That was the underlying point of my proposition.
They have been looked for and in September 2011, it was reported at CERN that a tau neutrino had travelled faster than the speed of light; however it seems now that they hadn't synchronised their clocks properly!
No wonder, if tachyons do not follow a time-line, how can we even begin to measure the time it takes for a tachyon to travel from here to there? Does it travel as a probability wave?
I am truly interested in the mechanics of FTL, as IMO, a time-line is the result of change. Thus any dynamic particle (real or hypothetical), should have an associated time-line. Is this what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"? Entanglement?
If I understand David Bohm, he postulated a higher dimension of pure potential, without any physical properties whatever. Only in the Implicate (the formation of a metaphysical image) do these potentials acquire sufficiently focused interaction (metaphysical harmonics?), whith increasing "probability" for becoming explicated in our reality, that narrow band range we can actually observe even with our sophisticated instruments.
Write, forget the tachyons. It is not unusual in physics that we get 2 possible solutions for our equations, often due to squares in the equation: 2 squared is 4, but -2 squared is too. Sometimes both solutions have physical meaning, sometimes 1 must be excluded due to physical considerations. I am convinced tachyons belong to the second category: their existence would violate the order of cause and effect.
Write, forget the tachyons. It is not unusual in physics that we get 2 possible solutions for our equations, often due to squares in the equation: 2 squared is 4, but -2 squared is too. Sometimes both solutions have physical meaning, sometimes 1 must be excluded due to physical considerations. I am convinced tachyons belong to the second category: their existence would violate the order of cause and effect.
The physicist Max Tegmark did a taxonomy of worlds counterfactual to our own in which tachyons only would exist if our own metric of 3 space + 1 time were flipped to 1 space + 3 time. The taxonomy also showed, he says, that life of any kind would be impossible outside of 3 + 1. For instance, if there were four dimensions of space and one of time, gravity would be described by an inverse cube law rather than an inverse square law, and it can be shown in such cases that stable orbits would fail to form and planetary systems could not exist. Of course, to extrapolate from the lack of planetary systems that any kind of life whatsoever is ruled out seems a stretch to me.
Tegmark also proposes that all mathematical structures are identical to physical structures, in an ensemble of universes disconnected from our own. He calls this the Level 4 multiverse.
Write, forget the tachyons. It is not unusual in physics that we get 2 possible solutions for our equations, often due to squares in the equation: 2 squared is 4, but -2 squared is too. Sometimes both solutions have physical meaning, sometimes 1 must be excluded due to physical considerations. I am convinced tachyons belong to the second category: their existence would violate the order of cause and effect.
The physicist Max Tegmark did a taxonomy of worlds counterfactual to our own in which tachyons only would exist if our own metric of 3 space + 1 time were flipped to 1 space + 3 time. The taxonomy also showed, he says, that life of any kind would be impossible outside of 3 + 1. For instance, if there were four dimensions of space and one of time, gravity would be described by an inverse cube law rather than an inverse square law, and it can be shown in such cases that stable orbits would fail to form and planetary systems could not exist. Of course, to extrapolate from the lack of planetary systems that any kind of life whatsoever is ruled out seems a stretch to me.
Tegmark also proposes that all mathematical structures are identical to physical structures, in an ensemble of universes disconnected from our own. He calls this the Level 4 multiverse.
Thanks for the info. I'll give that due consideration. However, I do have questions.
What part of a mutiverse would be expanding?
If each universe is a separate entity is it possible that each universe is expanding individually?
If so, what are they expanding into, each other?
Tegmark also proposes that all mathematical structures are identical to physical structures, in an ensemble of universes disconnected from our own. He calls this the Level 4 multiverse.
For me, I wait till we have empirical proof of these causally disconnected universes... :-S