Lookie what I found:
He and Hawking call their theory 'top-down' cosmology, because instead of looking for some fundamental set of initial physical laws under which our Universe unfolded, it starts 'at the top', with what we see today, and works backwards to see what the initial set of possibilities might have been. In effect, says Hertog, the present 'selects' the past.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
February 5th, 2008 at 7:43 am
From the link:
Gotta luv it. Selection on a cosmic level.:cool:
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 7:43 am
February 5th, 2008 at 8:46 am
So the finely tuned universe was selected out of a superposition all the possible universes long, long before intelligent agents appeared in the universe.
Comment by The Pixie — February 5, 2008 @ 8:46 am
February 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Well, that depends on what kinda agents you're accepting here.
Anyway, the claim gets a bit more complicated. Look up the delayed choice experiment re: quantum mechanics, and retrocausality. 'Obviously this happened way before we were around' doesn't say as much as many would suspect.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot... - A good example. And a nice little quote from the page:
Comment by nullasalus — February 5, 2008 @ 9:21 am
February 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
nullasalus
Can you talk me through this. I found this on the delayed choice experiment. As far as I can see the choice still happens before wave function collapses. I could easily be wrong, but I suspect wheeler's photon from a distant star is in a superposition of states for millions of years right up to the point when it is detected. The observer chooses how to detect the photon, and it is that detection that collapses the wavefunction, determining what the photon actually did for last few million years.
The article is talking about that collapse happening a short time (thousand years short time) after the big Bang. You seem to be arguing for a superposition of ever more different versions that are still around today (or at least whenever intelligence appeared), which is not what the article is claiming.
Comment by The Pixie — February 5, 2008 @ 11:40 am
February 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Our capacity to reflect on the past is quite possibly indicative of a sublime form of reverse causation. We assume a forward causation as content supported by form, but this forward mode depends on boundary conditions given as the supporting form (or context). Given that the universe, including ourselves, is a unified whole then there is no way to exclude the possibility that the present moments imprints on context found in the distant past, context that the present moment is united with.
We can think of an action principle that is "objectified" in the sense that it is found looking the same for all perspectives in the range offered by a symmetry condition. But if the universe is a unified whole, action so defined involves a transaction that necessarily flows in two time directions: one side brings a plurality of expression in an expanding universe; the other side falls back into singularity in a reverse big bang (the big crunch). There is always a middle term that holds the two-sided reality together. Arguably, the middle term is the source of sentience, otherwise the laws of nature (given by said action principles) would have never been discovered. However, the laws of nature are experiential: meaning that the the laws must be first conceived in the mind; and then the laws must be empirically verified. So the middle term can be felt, but in feeling such a middle term we find ourselves pointing to the beyond. Something slips away from reason, and we are forced to embrace our own provisionality.
Comment by Stephen — February 5, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Hi All,
Here is the Hawking/Hertog paper itself…
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-...
Still looking into it. But my first reaction is that this was the kind of thing I was talking about when I said to Bradford…
Except Hawking and Hertog seem to be only focusing on the past. However, I just briefly glanced through the paper.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Pixie,
I'm not arguing for anything, really. I'm pointing out the complexity of this subject - I've seen Paul Davies argue that it's possible conscious agents are an essential part of a universe, so this universe was selected for the sake of logical consistency. Hawking himself has said (or at least joked - it's hard to tell with him) that as far as describing the history of the big bang goes, there's multiple descriptions and we may just have to take our pick, because by QM more than one distinct answer could be right.
If anything, saying that 'well, this all happened before conscious agents were around' doesn't say much. I personally love reading up on QM, but have no solid opinions. Consciousness interaction with collapse intrigues me, but MWI gives me a laugh too, so it's all good.
Comment by nullasalus — February 5, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
nullasalus
I have heard that theory from other people (Wheeler?) too. But I think they are talking about wavefunctions from the beginning of time stretching until there are intelligent agents to collapse them, which is not what Hawkings is saying, to judge from the except above.
Yes it does.
I have never found anything convincing in the argument that consciousness is involved. For me, Schrodinger's cat is in a single state; the collapse happens at the detector.
Comment by The Pixie — February 5, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
The Pixie,
Where you're getting that from, I do not know. The article mentions no collapse, no 'thousands of years'. And even by Davies' views on physical laws and even retrocausality, I've never seen it suggested that he thought the situation was 'everything was a wavefunction until there was an intelligent agent'. Rather, the idea was that the histories that unfolded could only have been ones that could give rise to observers. Certain particular events may be explained through retrocausality, perhaps even (per Wheeler) very old, but nothing required to go down quite that way.
No it doesn't.
Your move, Pixie.
That's nice. The quantum physicists are thataway, each of them has their own preference, including some bona fide physicists who see a quantum interaction with consciousness. If you want to discuss which explanation of measurement is correct, I suggest you bring a switchblade.
Me, I just find it interesting. Then again, I'm not threatened by the prospect of either MWI or consciousness being involved. Not like it matters, I'm in the matrix anyway.
Comment by nullasalus — February 5, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Hi Stephen,
Please excuse any condesending, arrogant and/or narcisistic effect my comment may exhibit, but…
I'm impressed.
Please say more, including any critique of my crude explainations in the other thread. (the physics stuff, not the political bickering)
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hi Nullasalus and Pixie,
Have you got your favorite headache remedy handy?
Pixie wrote…
What if I showed you an experiment where Wheeler's delayed choice occured AFTER an entangled photon hits a detector?
Here is a link to A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser
[emphasis mine]
So how many of these type examples will it take for physicists to simply accept that all quantum effects are interconnected in spacetime?
No wave-form collapsing into particle-form, just one giant fixed wavefunction that is the 4D spacetime geometry from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch.
BTW, would someone PLEASE explain to me what I am misunderstanding.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
nullasalus
It is this bit, which I quoted before:
I read "single history" to mean the wave function has collapsed from the "superposition of ever more different versions of the Universe" that were present in the first instants, to leave a single reality.
Sorry, no idea where I got that from either; my mistake.
Sorry, you have lost me there. Sure if you are restricted to histories that give rise to an observer, that is because the arrival of the observer fixes the universe to those histories?
Tell you what, you say why "saying that 'well, this all happened before conscious agents were around' doesn't say much", and I will respond accordingly. Or we can just bat about empty assertions. You choose.
Comment by The Pixie — February 5, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Hi thought provoker
There is a certain felt beauty that comes with physical laws derived from symmetry conditions. This is a remarkable observation. Einstein hinted at this when he declared that "what is incomprehensible is that the universe is comprehensible" (in not so many words).
The incomprehensibility relates to sentience (the law's precondition), in my view, and so there is something that is beyond our laws that is ineffable. I figure that this ineffability is irreducibly complex; meaning that the ineffable cannot be reduced to chance and necessity, as I said before.
What is needed in a Trinitarian logic of the likes of Hegel's dialectic, or Edmund Husserl's transcendental subjectivity. So what I am suggesting should not be seen as completely original. There is also a hint of what I am suggesting in Steve McIntosh's "Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution," where we see heavy reference to Hegel.
So we live in a world of felt equivocations, at least that is what I am saying. Natural law as an equation is such an equivocation as this law as an abstraction tends to forget the sentience that led to the law's discovery.
"Design" is the detection of contrivance given as an innate synthesis of representation and its recognition. The middle term is hiden by the synthesis and is the source of the ineffiable. The felt source slips away and gives its support to the innate grammar that is now universal is scope.
Thank God that the equivocations are felt, lest there be no beyond to point to and Husserl would be unable to purify the pregiven assumptions leading to his transcendental subjectivity. The equivocations would otherwise be a challenge to us, not knowing of this weakness is to fall blindly for our desires. So find yourself vibrating, in a pulsation of vitality.
"Poverty of spirit" is said is to be required, so as to empty ourselves to make room for God's grace. But this equivocation shares the same felt middle term as "richness of spirit": having the self certitude to turn into the light, even in our darkest hour. And you see, arguably this spiritual tension impacts our evolution, including other life that shares a felt vitality.
Comment by Stephen — February 5, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hi Stephen,
Let me see if I can put this into my overly-simplified terms…
I agree, the universe is beautiful and wondrous, yet simple. This defies expectations and fills most people with awe and suspicion that it is too perfect.
Are you saying that awareness or consciousness is a precondition for natural laws to even be discovered? I would agree that the laws can not be reduced beyond a certain point. Penrose calls Quantum Mechanics non-algorithmic (can't be reduced to chance and/or necessity).
I disagree that we could even begin to guess at the form of the non-algorithmic processes behind Quantum Mechanics. To me, this approaches philosophy. For that, I go with the basics that it is the wise man who knows that he doesn't know the Truth. Penrose's trilogy is made up of Mental World, Platonic World and Physical World.
I used to think of "F = ma" as approaching gospel even though it was just an equation. I have come to understand it is just how we think about the problem. My religious training was in Christian Science. I recited the scientific statement of being many times… "There is no life, truth or substance in matter, all is infinite mind and its infinite manifestation…." I no longer call myself a Christian Scientist, but I still remember.
Are you suggesting the "innate grammar that is now universal in scope" is the universal belief in some kind of ineffiable supreme being (i.e. God)?
Sorry, but I look at the night sky in wonder and awe and believe that in this universe if it can happen it does happen. However, this just does not give me the feeling that there must be a designer behind the "design".
Ethics and self worth is what prevents me from falling blindly for my desires.
IMO, imposed morality without agreement is the cause of sin, not the cure.
Ethically, I'll let Husserl and others purify whatever assumptions they wish as long as they don't try to impose their transcendental Truths on me or mine (per the agreement laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America).
I am sure that I could be put into a mental state where I would be willing to believe whatever. While I have been in a state of "poverty of spirit" and down right desparate, I did not feel a desire to turn to an ineffiable supreme being for help.
I'm sorry if my reaction overly surprises you in a negative way.
Please let me know if I misunderstood what you were saying.
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
The Pixie,
From what I read, just what 'collapsed the superposition of the big bang' at that point, and under what conditions, is itself quite a debate. But even putting aside that question.. well, that's next.
You're connecting 'conscious observers will eventually arrive on the scene given these conditions' with 'the observers themselves are what cause the collapse'. But the latter doesn't automatically follow from the former. Really, let's go by your own claim; 'The superposition of the universe collapsed far in advance of known life.' From my reading of Davies and the like-minded, it may well have been the case that the only collapse options at that point were ones whose unfolding would lead to observers (if there's no other life, then 'life on earth'). But that claim isn't tied to the life-on-earth doing the collapsing.
Already have. Went into more detail at your request. Again, your move.
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 12:35 am
February 6th, 2008 at 5:21 am
nullasalus
I do not think Hertog and Hawkings are saying this is fact; I think they are proposing it as a possible hypothesis. If that hypothesis is true, then the wavefunction that was the superposition of all possible universes collapsed pretty soon after the Big Bang. So if they are right, this neatly solves the fine-tuning problem for atheists. Cool.
I am observing that some people are connecting 'conscious observers will eventually arrive on the scene given these conditions' with 'the observers themselves are what cause the collapse'. From here:
Personally, I find that unconvincing.
Comment by The Pixie — February 6, 2008 @ 5:21 am
February 6th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Pixie,
Let's go with your version of it: 'The superposition of all possible universes collapsed into a fine-tuned universe.' Alright; So what made it collapse? Why did it collapse into a fine-tuned universe? "We're not sure, but it wasn't a mind" and "luck" This seems like trying to turn lemons into lemonade, except in this case the lemon is a brick. I admire the spirit.
As for what Hawking has proposed, you can see it more fleshed out in this New Scientist article. Here's a juicy bit, with added emphasis:
But according to Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge and Thomas Hertog of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the steps are all backward. According to these physicists, there is no history of the universe. There is no immutable past, no 13.7 billion years of evolution for cosmologists to retrace. Instead, there are many possible histories, and the universe has lived them all. And if that's not strange enough, you and I get to play a role in determining the universe's history. Like a reverse choose-your-own-adventure story, we, the observers, can choose the past.
I admit, I didn't expect to find this - but at least I seem to have been right in that Davies wasn't the one proposing this. I suppose we see the reason why this is a couple year old article, but Hawking Flexiverse isn't being bandied about as an atheist save for the fine-tuning problem: It 'solves' it by admitting to fine tuning, but arguing that observers play a central role. Not a popular move.
Then again, the preferred method for 'solving' fine-tuning has usually been outright MWI. Russell's probably spinning in his grave over that. And Flexiverse would turn him into a bona-fide drill.
Physicists. Down the hall. Switchblade.
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 6:39 am
February 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
nullasalus
Interesting that the New Scientist article says something rather different to the article Mike found. Which do we believe?
Comment by The Pixie — February 6, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hi Pixie,
Why trust either of them?
Here is the link to the actual Hawking/Hertog paper.
I would say something about independent thinking but I have probably riled enough people already.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The Pixie:
Are we talking about the link MikeGene gave in his original blog post here and the New Scientist article nullasalus just linked to? Am I missing something, specifically the "rather different" part? Sorry if that's a dumb question but I feel I've missed a left turn here somewhere. Thanks.
And, nullasalus . . .
. . . That's just funny right there. I don't care who you are.
I believe you owe me a new shirt.
Comment by Rob R. — February 6, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi TP
Because I just do not have the knowledge to be able to evaluate the paper myself. Having looked a bit more carefully, I get the impression that the paper does not say one way or another. What do you think?
Hi Rob R.
The Hertog and Hawkings paper makes the claim that at the Big Bang a superposition of all possible universes. The issue is when the resultant wavefunction collapses to give the single universe we live in. Some possible answers are:
1. Shortly after the Big Bang, when the other universes themselves collapse
2. When the first sentient being (conscious observer) appears in the universe
3. When scientists start looking back at the Big Bang
4. When superbeings evolve into some kind of God in the far future
5. Never
The article Mike linked to seems to suggest the first, while the New Scientist article the second or third. I see nothing in the paper to suggest they consider conscious observer at all relevant, but then I could not find anything one way or the other way.
Comment by The Pixie — February 6, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Hi Pixie,
First, I wouldn't want to try to tell you the answer you should have. I would try to help you understand. However, I think you already figured it out.
Here is my biased interpretation…
In the 1994 debate between Penrose and Hawking, Hawking made it quite clear that he is not interested in guessing at reality. IMO, he is only interested (as a formal scientist) is in developing tools he can use to calculate the answers seen in experimental data.
Therefore, it would be unlikely that Hawking would be providing a specific answer in a scientific paper. And in reading this paper, it does seem like it says a lot without coming to a common sense conclusion.
While I can understand Hawking's position, it makes it frustrating when trying to get straight answers about QM from people who share his view. No one feels the need to defend any one interpretation because it has become "Standard QM" to accept them all as equal possibilities, even Many Worlds Interpretation.
At which time I throw in the "God does it" interpretation and point out that must be a valid QM interpretation too.
That being said. I do like that Hawking is starting the support of the idea of looking at the 4D spacetime wavefunction(s) holistically from the here and now.
This leads to the inevidable questions of…
1. In integrating all the paths, shouldn't the future paths be included too?
2. Wouldn't integrating paths in both directions result in a standing wave or waves over the entire length of spacetime?
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 6, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
From the more pure TP (thank you, TP) linked:
"The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point and evolution."
So, all questions aside, the one thing that seems certain in the H-H paper is that observers play a role in the state of the universe. Multiple histories, observer dependent. Very convenient.
Rob,
Comment by nullasalus — February 6, 2008 @ 9:29 pm