Particular facts from general laws.

[Kuznetzova]

The only question that really matters in metaphysics is how particular facts can emerge and exist in a universe governed by general laws.

How could there ever be a particular fact about anything in a universe that is only defined by general laws of physics?

Scientists of all stripes cannot answer that question -- and in their desperation at knowing they cannot answer it, they propose a multiverse to explain it away. The originating clumpiness in galaxies is explained as being a result of the general law that all universes will cover the range of possible primordial configurations of clumps. And then all the particulars that result from such clumping are the result of our universe being one of those many universes in the "configuration space" of the multiverse.

If I have a cat as a pet, and that cat has black fur, that is a particular fact. "My cat has black fur" is a particular fact in this particular universe. How did that particular fact originate? Can that particular fact be traced, inevitably, back to some asymmetry in primordial hot hydrogen clouds of the early universe? If the answer is "yes" , from whence did this asymmetry emerge?

[chaz wyman]

The only question that really matters in metaphysics is how particular facts can emerge and exist in a universe governed by general laws.
I think there is a lot more besides, like what basis has metaphysics in the first place. And as ALL general laws are only inferred from particular facts, those (assumed) laws are only contingent os the continued observation of particular facts that support them.
How could there ever be a particular fact about anything in a universe that is only defined by general laws of physics?
Because the the basis for all generalities (including so-called laws) exist due wholly by the persistent regularities in particular events. I think this means that you have it backwards.
Scientists of all stripes cannot answer that question -- and in their desperation at knowing they cannot answer it, they propose a multiverse to explain it away.
Nope. Philosophically aware scientists know that all they are doing is describing the universe in ways that best fit the reduction and 'saving of appearances'.
The originating clumpiness in galaxies is explained as being a result of the general law that all universes will cover the range of possible primordial configurations of clumps. And then all the particulars that result from such clumping are the result of our universe being one of those many universes in the "configuration space" of the multiverse.

If I have a cat as a pet, and that cat has black fur, that is a particular fact. "My cat has black fur" is a particular fact in this particular universe. How did that particular fact originate? Can that particular fact be traced, inevitably, back to some asymmetry in primordial hot hydrogen clouds of the early universe? If the answer is "yes" , from whence did this asymmetry emerge?

The universe is as it is. If your insistence on universal laws does not fit, then the problem lies with you and not with the universe; with your assumptions about the way it ought to be described and the facts.

[Kuznetzova]

And as ALL general laws are only inferred from particular facts, those (assumed) laws are only contingent os the continued observation of particular facts that support them.

Are you suggesting that this contingency means these regularities don't even exist?? (!!!)


Because the the basis for all generalities (including so-called laws) exist due wholly by the persistent regularities in particular events. I think this means that you have it backwards.

Could you re-write this sentence? Your garbled grammatical form has me utterly confused. Are you saying that the basis of generalities is regularities or are you saying the existence of generalities is only some fleeting illusion in the minds of humans who are (led astray) by the illusion of persistent regularities?


Nope. Philosophically aware scientists know that all they are doing is describing the universe in ways that best fit the reduction and 'saving of appearances'.

Thank you for your reply. But I am wondering whether your entire point is something more sophisticated than: "Nothing is real. All is mental illusion of regularities in minds. I am solipsist. Kill yourself".

Just kinda wondering because that is what I got out of it. But maybe you could clarify.

[chaz wyman]

And as ALL general laws are only inferred from particular facts, those (assumed) laws are only contingent os the continued observation of particular facts that support them.

Are you suggesting that this contingency means these regularities don't even exist?? (!!!)

OBVIOUSLY NOT.


Because the basis for all generalities (including so-called laws) exist due wholly by the persistent regularities in particular events. I think this means that you have it backwards.

Could you re-write this sentence? Your garbled grammatical form has me utterly confused. Are you saying that the basis of generalities is regularities or are you saying the existence of generalities is only some fleeting illusion in the minds of humans who are (led astray) by the illusion of persistent regularities?

It's not that garbled. I removed a double "the" from the beginning.
The only basis for all generalities and all natural laws exist due to persistent regularities in particular events. This means that the particular pre-exists, the OBSERVED laws.


Nope. Philosophically aware scientists know that all they are doing is describing the universe in ways that best fit the reduction and 'saving of appearances'.

Thank you for your reply. But I am wondering whether your entire point is something more sophisticated than: "Nothing is real. All is mental illusion of regularities in minds. I am solipsist. Kill yourself".

You 'wonder' incorrectly. Science is the art of observing particular events and positing laws from them. You have it backwards because you seem to think that the basis of science ought not to exist.
The world is as it is. It does not have to conform to your conception of it.

Just kinda wondering because that is what I got out of it. But maybe you could clarify.

Maybe you could read it all again?

[Kuznetzova]

So you have merely substituted the phrase "observed persistent regularities" for the word "Law". And so we have made absolutely no progress on the original question.

I'm sure you have your own opinion, but before we get into that, could you paraphrase or synopsize what mainstream cosmology says is the source of the initial primordial clumpings in the galaxies? After you provide this synopsis, then feel free to insert your own interpretations and opinions.

It is my understanding that the initial clumpings in the galaxies in the primordial universe was due to so-called "quantum fluctuations". And then we are faced with the question as to why those particular fluctuations and not others. They answer that by saying that there is a multiverse which contains all possible primordial initial clumps in a "configuration space" of universes -- called the multiverse.

In other words, they have to invent a giant infinite configuration space of universes to explain particular details about the universe we inhabit. So when confronted with the question as to how or why particulars would work themselves into reality, they de-commission science and engage in flights of multiverse fantasy. In other words, they are still holding fast to the claim that particulars never ever happen in reality -- ever. That the universe is merely a random point in a FROZEN CONFIGURATION SPACE of all possible quantum fields. There is something deep in the philosophy of science that denies particularity from ever manifesting itself in reality. And any particular affair you point out to professional Quantum Cosmologist, he will explain away as a single random point taken from any and all points.

This is philosophically dubious. And if you are a philosopher, you should see why.

[chaz wyman]

So you have merely substituted the phrase "observed persistent regularities" for the word "Law". And so we have made absolutely no progress on the original question.

No, not at all. We can experience and have evidence for "observed persistent regularities, laws are interpreted FROM them.
The problem with your post at the top of the thread is that you are staring FROM laws not observed persistent regularities.
You are a deductivist, whilst real science stems from induction.
Your question, at the top of the thread has it all backwards.



I'm sure you have your own opinion, but before we get into that, could you paraphrase or synopsize what mainstream cosmology says is the source of the initial primordial clumpings in the galaxies? After you provide this synopsis, then feel free to insert your own interpretations and opinions.

The primary source of 'clumpings' is our observation of them. The universe is presented to us a set of particularities, as I already said.
Your metaphysical problem, is no problem at all.



It is my understanding that the initial clumpings in the galaxies in the primordial universe was due to so-called "quantum fluctuations". And then we are faced with the question as to why those particular fluctuations and not others. They answer that by saying that there is a multiverse which contains all possible primordial initial clumps in a "configuration space" of universes -- called the multiverse.

Not relevant.

In other words, they have to invent a giant infinite configuration space of universes to explain particular details about the universe we inhabit. So when confronted with the question as to how or why particulars would work themselves into reality, they de-commission science and engage in flights of multiverse fantasy. In other words, they are still holding fast to the claim that particulars never ever happen in reality -- ever. That the universe is merely a random point in a FROZEN CONFIGURATION SPACE of all possible quantum fields. There is something deep in the philosophy of science that denies particularity from ever manifesting itself in reality. And any particular affair you point out to professional Quantum Cosmologist, he will explain away as a single random point taken from any and all points.

Ditto. Have you forgotten at the top of your thread?

This is philosophically dubious. And if you are a philosopher, you should see why.

Dah!

[Notvacka]

How could there ever be a particular fact about anything in a universe that is only defined by general laws of physics?

I have to agree with Chaz here. You have it backwards. What's amazing is that the workings of the universe can indeed be described by general laws. Physics is about finding and formulating those laws. How come there are laws in the first place? That's the main metaphysical question.

[thedoc]

An astrophysisist once said that "The most incomprehensable thing about the universe is that it is comprehensable".

[Kuznetzova]

Are you in a state of denial of the mainstream explanation of the irregularities in the early universe?

Real scientists say that it is due to "Quantum fluctuations" in the very early universe prior to the expansion of space (the Inflationary Epoch.)
When you ask for why those particular fluctuations happened, they explain that away as being one of many possible fluctuations in a frozen configuration space called a "multiverse".

Are all of you denying that they say these things with impunity?

[chaz wyman]

Are you in a state of denial of the mainstream explanation of the irregularities in the early universe?

Real scientists say that it is due to "Quantum fluctuations" in the very early universe prior to the expansion of space (the Inflationary Epoch.)
When you ask for why those particular fluctuations happened, they explain that away as being one of many possible fluctuations in a frozen configuration space called a "multiverse".

Are all of you denying that they say these things with impunity?

The irregularities in the early universe are unknowable. They are generated from the assumption of uniformitarianism and the observation of contemporary facts.

The concept of a multiverse is pure speculation also with no evidential basis.

There are a range of models available to describe the universe, they are all of the "saving the appearances", type.
There have been times before when there have been competing cosmologies. Even Copernicus failed to devise a better system than Ptolemy, until Kepler thought up Ellipses.
Settling on the Newtonian model was okay for a while. But the questions were easier then as they rested on observable phenomena. Now we know they were all wrong as the sun was never the centre of the universe as they thought.
Today's cosmological musings can never be verified until we invent a time machine to go back the the beginning of time - which is never.

[Notvacka]

Are you in a state of denial of the mainstream explanation of the irregularities in the early universe?

Real scientists say that it is due to "Quantum fluctuations" in the very early universe prior to the expansion of space (the Inflationary Epoch.)
When you ask for why those particular fluctuations happened, they explain that away as being one of many possible fluctuations in a frozen configuration space called a "multiverse".

Are all of you denying that they say these things with impunity?

Well, what can they say? They are, as you point out, real scientists. "We don't know, and don't expect to ever know", would be prudent, since it's unfair to demand that science answer metaphysical questions. Instead, we get the multiverse. It is pure speculation, of course, but it's probably the best anybody can come up with, without resorting to notions of God. Don't exepct science to answer this question, ever.

[Kuznetzova]

Instead, we get the multiverse. It is pure speculation, of course, but it's probably the best anybody can come up with, without resorting to notions of God.

"...without resorting to notions of God". YES! This is exactly what this thread is about and why I created it.

I mean you can play the game that chaz is doing where he APPEARS in text to be responding to a post I made, but on deeper inspection he is just opining on an unrelated topic. The first thing we need to do here is be honest with each other in admitting that Cosmologists do indeed assert that the irregularities in the universe are the result of "quantum fluctuations" prior to the rapid expansion of space called the Inflationary Epoch. These fluctuations were as small as the insides of atomic nuclei prior to the inflation, but after the inflation, they were literally the size of galaxies.

Step one in this conversation is looking each other in the eye and being honest. Yes, scientists and cosmologists say these things. They do. There is no opining or dodging your way out of this. They say it. Once we are on the same page on that, then we should agree that there is a begging burning question remaining about the reason for those particular fluctuations. And then we should be honest with each other enough to admit that their "official answer" is that there is a multiverse which evenly covers all possible quantum fluctuations, and that we are accidentally in this universe and not "another one" out there in the multiverse.

We can add our own opining at a later time.. but step 1 and step 2 is getting ourselves on the same page. I'm not proselytizing any of this material. I am just trying to get us all "on the same page" so we can have a discussion instead of talking past each other. I happen to think Big Bang cosmology is flaky nonsense. Wonder if there are others. I expect philosophers should know the answers from science are dubious and flaky.

[Kuznetzova]

The irregularities in the early universe are unknowable. They are generated from the assumption of uniformitarianism and the observation of contemporary facts.

Lets go a step deeper, chaz. Those ancient irregularities must have been real. They are real now.
So where did they come from? What was their origin?

[chaz wyman]

The irregularities in the early universe are unknowable. They are generated from the assumption of uniformitarianism and the observation of contemporary facts.

Lets go a step deeper, chaz. Those ancient irregularities must have been real. They are real now.
So where did they come from? What was their origin?

I think you are the sort of girl that is looking for god.

[Notvacka]

I happen to think Big Bang cosmology is flaky nonsense. Wonder if there are others. I expect philosophers should know the answers from science are dubious and flaky.

It's not nonsense. Big Bang cosmology describes the history of the universe in a way that is consistent with the observational data at hand. So far, so good. The problem is that the earliest universe, before inflation, as proposed by the theory, can't contain or express our natural laws, leaving scientists with the metaphysical question of why there are laws in the first place, and why we have these particular laws, rather than some other laws.

The multiverse is a metaphysical speculation, providing a possible answer, and as such it's philosophy, rather than science. There is nothing wrong with Big Bang cosmology, you just need to observe what part of the theory is actual science and what part is metaphysics.