Re: Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme
- From: "OsherD" <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Feb 2006 00:10:51 -0800
From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx
Suppose that we consider the physics conjecture:
Conjecture. The Big Bang caused the expansion of the Universe.
Although some algebraic topologists and algebraic geometers have
suggested "rounding off" the Big Bang since singularities are rather
embarrassing to "physics as we know it" (substitute "Our bureaucratic
physics" for this) and other theorists have come up with alternative
scenarios like "repeating Big Bangs" (Steinhardt-Turok-Seiberg
Neo-Cyclic Theory) or "time loop theory" (Gott-Li), there still is
typically a general receptivity to the above Conjecture in physics, or
at least to its plausibility and to the plausibility of investigating
it.
Notice that if we let proposition a be "The Big Bang occurred" and
proposition b be "the Universe expanded and has been expanding," then
(a-->b) expresses the above Conjecture.
Likewise, if A is the set corresponding to "all (random) scenarios in
which the Big Bang occurred" and B is the set corresponding to "all
(random) scenarios in which the Universe expanded and has been
expanding," then (A-->B) plausibly expresses the above Conjecture.
The occurrence of the Big Bang preceded the expansion of the Universe
in time, and this is a universal feature of (probable) cause-effect
provided that simultaneity is allowed to be included under "preceded"
(so < = is meant rather than < in an inequality translation of
"preceded"). Furthermore, the first thing intuitively "resulted in"
the second thing, roughly like the push of a force results in the
motion of whatever is pushed. This again is a universal feature of
(probable) cause-effect.
These should be familiar to physicists, since these types of scenarios
(usually in more concrete cases than the whole Universe) are what
physics is about. Physics is not about listing the Big Bang and the
expansion of the Universe as separate "facts". It is about relating
them, either confirming their relationship or disconfirming it. It is
not about isolated facts but causes and effects and correlations,
random or not. It is about explanations which turn out to be causal or
correlational. And even technology such as plumbing and electricity
and building are about these relationships, even if they're
"accomplished habitually.
Osher Doctorow
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it our math letting us down?
- Next by Date: Re: Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme
- Previous by thread: Re: Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme
- Next by thread: Re: Probable Influence/Causation Versus Algebraic Geometry/Topology 2: PI vs Scheme
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
