Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[public hermit]

Frank Wilczek says, "...he urged me to consider two very basic physical questions. They launched me on a surprising scientific adventure:
What real-world systems could crystals in spacetime describe?
Might these patterns lead us to identify distinctive states of matter?"

Wilczek wants to use certain properties of time crystals to explain or model larger space-time systems. If time crystals have space-time properties, then one would reasonably think, whatever was discovered on that level could be generalized over similar systems at a larger level. However, he is not proving anything. He is simply offering a possibility to empirically test a certain hypothesis that there is an order, which underlies the trustworthiness of repeated experiments? Am I reading that right? He hasn't empirically proven the order, he is just hoping time crystals will provide the needed evidence.

One could complain he is committing the fallacy of composition, i.e. assuming the whole must have some particular property because some ( or all) of its parts have it. But, it's still as good a place to start as any.

"The steady-state-universe model was a principled attempt to maintain τ in cosmology. In that model, popular in the mid-20th century, astronomers postulated that the state, or appearance, of the universe on large scales is independent of time—in other words, it upholds time symmetry. Although the universe is always expanding, the steady-state model postulated that matter is continuously being created, allowing the average density of the cosmos to stay constant. But the steady-state model did not survive the test of time. Instead astronomers have accumulated overwhelming evidence that the universe was a very different place 13.7 billion years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, even though the same physical laws applied. In that sense, τ is (perhaps spontaneously) broken by the universe as a whole. Some cosmologists have also suggested that ours is a cyclic universe or that the universe went through a phase of rapid oscillation. These speculations—which, to date, remain just that—bring us close to the circle of ideas around time crystals."

Wilczek is struggling to explain how the spacetime symmetry was broken in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which leads him to offer the possibility of a cyclical universe or that the universe went through a phase of rapid oscillation. So, his desired cosmology is already in place and he wants the time crystals to do the work he needs. It will be interesting to see what all comes of this. Interesting article.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How does the scientific method justify the scientific method?

It doesn't. But we can (and do) keep checking to make sure all is consistent.

You cannot get an "ought" from an "is"

Truer words were never spoken.

Science is a tool, only to be used in concert with other tools like philosophy and metaphysics.

I, the OP, wholeheartedly agree.

 

[46AND2]

While I have no opinion about whether experiments in another time would be subject to the same conditions or not, I see a hole in your supposition.

You see, if conditions were different in the past then how could you be sure that the speed of light was constant? Also, how can we be sure that astronomers and physicists have it correct? The concepts they use are still just theories. In the absence of confirming by being able to measure using a different method we can only guess at whether it holds true over vast distances. How can they be sure that the time they think it has taken light to arrive is correct? It isn't being timed.

I would also guess that it is difficult for astronomers to be as objective as they should.

Sam91: says he has no opinion on the topic
Sam91: offers his opinion on the topic

 

[Sam91]

Sam91: says he has no opinion on the topic
Sam91: offers his opinion on the topic

I am female. I have no opinion on the actual topic. I disagreed with the reasoning and 'proof'.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is called Uniformitarianism, and was one of the basic axioms of the Scientific Revolution of the last 300 years.

It is however just that. You cannot prove the principle, as you are interpreting current results by it, not the past. For instance, we assume oxygen levels changed in the Atmosphere, but if oxygen acted wholely differently in the past, the conclusions drawn would be quite different - while the data we see today would remain the same. It is a species of Question begging to make predictions according to Uniformitarian principles and then consider Uniformitarianism vindicated if that is what we find. It is akin to how the ancients saw vindication of their theories of four elements, because wherever they looked they saw things reducible to it (as when wood is heated to release fire, air as smoke, ash as earth or bubbling moisture of water).

It is however a basic part of the Methodologic Naturalism of modern Science, so that people seldom even realise it is an axiomatic position. We cannot prove Uniformitarianism, as we cannot absolutely prove anything really, but if you abandon the axiom, almost all our Science has the rug pulled from under it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For instance, we assume oxygen levels changed in the Atmosphere, but if oxygen acted wholely differently in the past,

Right, at best the complaints about uniformitarianism are unsupported assertions.

It is a species of Question begging to make predictions according to Uniformitarian principles and then consider Uniformitarianism vindicated if that is what we find.

It is not vindication or 'proof', but rather additional confirmation that everything we've seen so far is consistent with uniformitarianism. We have seen nothing to lead us to discard it as false.

We cannot prove that a stone will fall to the ground when you let go due to gravity tomorrow, just because they always have in the past. But no one seriously doubts this or they would be unable to leave the house without some trepidation that they might fall into the sky.

Everything in our past and present experience has confirmed our tentative hypothesis.

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

To put it in simple terms --- the scientific method is justified by the fact that it works. It has been argued that the scientific method has been mankind's greatest achievement. I think I agree with that till something better comes along.

That's ad hoc. "It's justified because it works"
Scientists are sometimes right and very often wrong. The method is not self-justifying simply because it produces results.

The scientific empiricist epistemology (theory of knowledge) begins with assuming the validity of the senses as a deductive tool, but as Descartes said: I would rather not trust something (the senses) which have deceived me before.

 

[JackRT]

The scientific empiricist epistemology (theory of knowledge) begins with assuming the validity of the senses as a deductive tool, but as Descartes said: I would rather not trust something (the senses) which have deceived me before.

Carried to its logical conclusion Descartes would trust nothing. That is how science proceeds --- trust nothing unless multiple independent witnesses get the same results. That is the mistake made by Fleischman and Pons when they announced that they had discovered cold fusion. Within days dozens of scientists all over the world were attempting to replicate their results with the exact same apparatus. None were able to do so.

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

Carried to its logical conclusion Descartes would trust nothing. That is how science proceeds --- trust nothing unless multiple independent witnesses get the same results. That is the mistake made by Fleischman and Pons when they announced that they had discovered cold fusion. Within days dozens of scientists all over the world were attempting to replicate their results with the exact same apparatus. None were able to do so.

I don't agree with all of Descartes, just thought that quote was salient. He was not a sceptic philosophically though, but a rationalist.

The fact is that the scientific method does not justify the scientific method. It is a tool; it cannot justify itself. It cannot be a foundation of one's worldview. The scientific, empiricist mindset has rejected philosophy and metaphysics as a whole though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Also, how can they be sure that space is the same between us and a distant object? It is quite vast. How can they be sure that there is not some type of phenomena, eddy etc distorting what we can record. We know a lot less than we think we do about a lot more than we know.

I would suggest that, in both your queries, the principle of parsimony applies. It is certainly conceivable that some laws, constants, or some other aspects of physics are different elsewhere and that they all somehow conspire to produce precisely all the observations we'd expect to make if they were not different, but the probability of such a remarkable coincidence is so small that we're justified in provisionally assuming that it is not the case.

I've heard it said that one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that the universe is not out to deceive us

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do understand what it is, and I am not judging it. But the OP gives the impression that science is a good in itself, and that it is only 'rubes' who refuse to understand it's brilliance.

The OP I read was refuting a specific assertion, not making generic value claims. Science is 'good' if your goal is the acquisition of knowledge about the world.

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

The OP I read was refuting a specific assertion, not making generic value claims. Science is 'good' if your goal is the acquisition of knowledge about the world.

Study of knowledge is epistemology, so we're already getting into the realm of philosophy.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

is not vindication or 'proof', but rather additional confirmation that everything we've seen so far is consistent with uniformitarianism. We have seen nothing to lead us to discard it as false.

You miss the point entirely. Everything will be consistent with Uniformitarianism when that is an assumed axiom.

For instance, when things like this occur:
How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

Uniformitarianism then makes us change current theory to account for it, but what if the fundamentals of the data had changed? This type of thing happens a lot, but the assumption is not that change occured, but that we'd made an error somewhere. This would be especially difficult if 'minute' changes on the quantum level say, that we have limited resources to test as is. If uniformitarianism is false, there really would be no way to tell in the paltry few years of data we collected - for all we know, 'refinements' in collected data, or aberrations we ascribe to bias or chance may be subtle fluctuations in the fundamental rules by which nature function. We simply can't tell, and our methodology is not structured to be able to account for such or even really 'perceive' it. Uniformitarianism is very much an assumed value today, both in Science and daily life.

Or on other grounds, the data we have would show our current findings on the structure of matter - according to Empiric reasoning, upon which we would then construct our hypotheses. At heart, even a theory on the Big Bang or so, is ultimately dependant on our current data, the current rules we find. If we retroactively seek to explain our 'present findings' as to what clues they left of history, Empirically it would remain based on how we find matter to act right now. It is not that the past and present confirms our tentative hypothesis, but that our tentative hypothesis is of necessity based upon present found action. As I said, a circular argument at best, and something that has to be assumed axiomatically. We would not ever expect anything to lead us to consider it false, by the very structure of Empiric Reasoning, so such would require an absolute paradigm shift in the fundamental structure of scientific methodology.

 

[durangodawood]

Biblical creation has the flavor of uniformitarianism

"...and it was very good".

You dont get the sense that God is still dialing things in as time goes on. (With the exception of humans, of course. They werent very good).

 

[Sam91]

You miss the point entirely. Everything will be consistent with Uniformitarianism when that is an assumed axiom.

For instance, when things like this occur:
How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

Uniformitarianism then makes us change current theory to account for it, but what if the fundamentals of the data had changed? This type of thing happens a lot, but the assumption is not that change occured, but that we'd made an error somewhere. This would be especially difficult if 'minute' changes on the quantum level say, that we have limited resources to test as is. If uniformitarianism is false, there really would be no way to tell in the paltry few years of data we collected - for all we know, 'refinements' in collected data, or aberrations we ascribe to bias or chance may be subtle fluctuations in the fundamental rules by which nature function. We simply can't tell, and our methodology is not structured to be able to account for such or even really 'perceive' it. Uniformitarianism is very much an assumed value today, both in Science and daily life.

Or on other grounds, the data we have would show our current findings on the structure of matter - according to Empiric reasoning, upon which we would then construct our hypotheses. At heart, even a theory on the Big Bang or so, is ultimately dependant on our current data, the current rules we find. If we retroactively seek to explain our 'present findings' as to what clues they left of history, Empirically it would remain based on how we find matter to act right now. It is not that the past and present confirms our tentative hypothesis, but that our tentative hypothesis is of necessity based upon present found action. As I said, a circular argument at best, and something that has to be assumed axiomatically. We would not ever expect anything to lead us to consider it false, by the very structure of Empiric Reasoning, so such would require an absolute paradigm shift in the fundamental structure of scientific methodology.

Enjoyed that link. Thank you

 

[Ken Rank]

A deceptive universe implies a deceptive Creator and that is a very dangerous theology because it suggests that the Creator is not to be trusted.

It isn't deceptive if God creates a man and, when 2 minutes old, the man looks to be 25. That isn't deceptive, that was simply how God did it. Likewise, if the tree was already bearing fruit that half a decade is seemingly skipped not to be deceptive, but because God created a tree bearing fruit instead of a seed that would have needed 5-10 years to grow into something that would have produced fruit. Likewise again, when He placed the stars in the heavens, trillions of miles away, they were there when He said be there, and their light didn't need however many light years to reach the Earth that physics tells us they would need. Again, not to be deceptive, rather, that was simply how God created the universe. And if our pea brains can't understand that or reconcile that to our man made ways of testing? To bad... that doesn't negate God nor take from His power and authority, it simply means we lack His mind and understanding.

 

[pitabread]

It isn't deceptive if God creates a man and, when 2 minutes old, the man looks to be 25. That isn't deceptive, that was simply how God did it. Likewise, if the tree was already bearing fruit that half a decade is seemingly skipped not to be deceptive, but because God created a tree bearing fruit instead of a seed that would have needed 5-10 years to grow into something that would have produced fruit. Likewise again, when He placed the stars in the heavens, trillions of miles away, they were there when He said be there, and their light didn't need however many light years to reach the Earth that physics tells us they would need. Again, not to be deceptive, rather, that was simply how God created the universe. And if our pea brains can't understand that or reconcile that to our man made ways of testing? To bad... that doesn't negate God nor take from His power and authority, it simply means we lack His mind and understanding.

It's deceptive because there are observations in the universe that suggest not just age, but history. In other words events that would have otherwise not occurred if the universe was merely created with the appearance of the occurrence of such events.

Again, I highly recommend reading this article: Path Across the Stars

Observations of the universe point to a universe that is billions of years old.

 

[pitabread]

Study of knowledge is epistemology, so we're already getting into the realm of philosophy.

One of the bases for acquiring knowledge is science. To which the philosophical basis is the assumption of an objective universe against which ideas in science are tested and evaluated.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You miss the point entirely. Everything will be consistent with Uniformitarianism when that is an assumed axiom.

That's just baloney.

We could look out and find that the stellar spectra don't make any sense. But in fact, apart from any Doppler effect, stellar spectra are comprehensible, and we can actually determine what elements compose the stars. This is direct evidence that quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and atomic theory are uniform in space and time. The rules a million years ago and a million light years away are the same as ours.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It isn't deceptive if God creates a man and, when 2 minutes old, the man looks to be 25. That isn't deceptive, that was simply how God did it.

Would it be deceptive to create fossils of animals that never lived?