Evolutionary Universal Laws

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[PoPpAScience]: I am a strong believer that the Universe is fully Evolutionary, and that all aspects of it are also Evolutionary. What do you think?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Allen,

I recently watched Walt Disney's animated movie "Fantasia 2000" on DVD. This animated movie is a real work of art in my opinion and I fully enjoyed the stunning images combined with music. Truly exceptional. The movie is a combination of short animations with compelling stories. However, there was one animation in particular that really "touched" me; it was about Death, Birth and Renewal. We see it every day, we see things come, things go and we see things being replenished. I firmly believe the Universe works this way, that is, the Universe is dynamic and so is everything in it. Hence, planets, stars, galaxies and all the physical "laws" we have to describe things that exist must change sooner or later. Is it not remarkable? Fantasia 2000 is often geared towards children, but it has a profound message indeed: Nothing really lives forever and nothing really dies.

We have to be careful about using the word "evolutionary". Don't forget, evolution obeys laws that aren't changing, it just mixes preexisting things around. If we are talking about the laws themselves changing over time this presents severe problems in talking about the past or future. What we observe has developed on the basis of more or less constant laws, if the laws are constantly changing then there is no physics or science unless we find an unchanging law that describes the manner in which they change over time. There has to be a minimum of one unchanging law for things to work.

Jeremy;
You wrote:
"Don't forget, evolution obeys laws that aren't changing, it just mixes preexisting things around."

You are stating the Laws are absolute. I say, they follow the only set law there is, and that is Evolution.
For you to say the laws are unchanging, is for you to say that you know the history of the Universe. I say, everywhere I look I see change. So, I am more on the side of the laws changing too.

I have a hard time with stating the Universe has set Laws. The reason for this is that there would have to be a creator that made and set the laws in the first place. Or at least the universe would have to come from, or into a medium with set parameters. I feel that the Universe is its own creation, thus creator, that flows by Evolution into the future. I feel that because the Universe popped AWARE from a Paradox of Potential, that it has no set parameters, only Evolution.

You wrote:
"if the laws are constantly changing then there is no physics or science unless we find an unchanging law that describes the manner in which they change over time."

I say that the unchanging law is Evolution. I also say that science is the study of this Evolution, and we must also evolve our thinking, with the flow, into the future. I say, science is the study of laws from the past, and the measurement of those laws now.
I feel that if we could make a machine that could push the speed of light, past what some call Universal Laws, that I feel that the Universe what not stop us or the light from going to what ever speed we could make it go.

Thanks; PoPpAScience

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You are stating the Laws are absolute. I say, they follow the only set law there is, and that is Evolution.
For you to say the laws are unchanging, is for you to say that you know the history of the Universe. I say, everywhere I look I see change. So, I am more on the side of the laws changing too.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So you are saying that evolution is absolute? That is a contradiction of meaning. For me to say the laws are unchanging is fairly rational given that anthropic studies in cosmology have shown that the universe is extremely sensitive to the smallest changes in parameters. The present universe that we observe could not have formed or remained stable if the laws themselves were gradually mutating. If the laws are changing they must be doing so at a cosmically slow rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I have a hard time with stating the Universe has set Laws. The reason for this is that there would have to be a creator that made and set the laws in the first place. Or at least the universe would have to come from, or into a medium with set parameters.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In any mathematical/logical system one must assume the axioms in order to derive anything else. Fundamental physical laws are axiomatic and do not need an explanation for the origin, they simply are. This may be unpalatable to you but it is unavoidable, our knowledge base must always assume something as true without a previous proof. The usefullness of the derived results determines the wisdom of our choice of axioms.

To Jeremy,

---

You said:
"So you are saying that evolution is absolute? That is a contradiction of meaning."

---

Hummm.. I do not see where I said absolute. As far as I know science has come to the agreement that Evolution is real, so it must be a set Law.

---

You said:
"For me to say the laws are unchanging is fairly rational given that anthropic studies in cosmology have shown that the universe is extremely sensitive to the smallest changes in parameters. The present universe that we observe could not have formed or remained stable if the laws themselves were gradually mutating. If the laws are changing they must be doing so at a cosmically slow rate."

---

Again through theories like the big bang, it has been stated that there was an Evolution of processes that lead to Atoms. That is how Evolution works. The next step follows the must simplest and logical path. For the Universe to Evolve within the smallest parameters seems very logical to me. Why would it take any other path. Also remember we are only looking at the Macro side of the Universe, we are very inexperienced in the workings of the Micro side.

You are basing change on our reference of time. I feel the Universe does not deal in time, only in outcome. It is like watching a tree for a day and saying it did not change, when we know through science that it did very much.
Is not the word mutating another way of saying Evolving?

---

You said:
"In any mathematical/logical system one must assume the axioms in order to derive anything else. Fundamental physical laws are axiomatic and do not need an explanation for the origin, they simply are. This may be unpalatable to you but it is unavoidable, our knowledge base must always assume something as true without a previous proof. The usefulness of the derived results determines the wisdom of our choice of axioms."

---

I find this true for a Fundamentalist thinker. Unfortunately I am a pioneer thinker, I am thinking into the future to try and understand the past. To me, all fundamentalist talk of the Universe through the works of others. I talk with the knowledge of others about things that go beyond the norm.

Remember you can not use the knowledge I agree with, to argue against a theory that wants to expand upon the minimum we know today. That does not seem very logical. I personally believe that fundamentalist are afraid of studying all knowledge available to them, and thus are very limited in their wisdom. I agree very much with what science has come up with, in their theories of the Evolution of Atoms. But there is more to the story that we have not found yet. This is what I seek, to find the rest of the story.

Thanks for the reply, look forward to more,
PoPpAScience

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jeremy]: In any mathematical/logical system one must assume the axioms in order to derive anything else. Fundamental physical laws are axiomatic and do not need an explanation for the origin, they simply are. This may be unpalatable to you but it is unavoidable, our knowledge base must always assume something as true without a previous proof. The usefullness of the derived results determines the wisdom of our choice of axioms.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I certainly agree, axioms are very important to get going, but we should not rule out the possibility that axioms probably need to be amended with increasing knowledge. It is generally believed that certain physical "laws" are not changing, but this conclusion can only be drawn from the mindset and experimental sophistication we have at this moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[PPAS]: I feel the Universe does not deal in time, only in outcome.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Time is perhaps meaningful as a concept for living beings like ourselves, but on a cosmological scale I feel the notion of time is somehow impaired. When one defines time, then one assumes that there exists a "beginning" and an "end". I believe the Universe does not deal in a beginning nor an end otherwise we retain the problem of creation and destruction.