Why do you think

[Calilasseia]

Right, let’s take a look at this latest piece of garbage, shall we?

@Sid

Ah, the Laws of Physics . Go on then , tell us where these so called “Laws “ come from or are they just conveniently there to explain everything .

First of all, as Sheldon and I have stated here, modern scientists operate on the basis that the laws of physics are DEscriptive. They regard their various postulates on the matter as DEscribing how the universe and its contents operate, and modify those postulates when new data informs them that this is required. Contrast this with the fatuous course taken by the authors of pre-scientific mythologies, who thought that their various pieces of made up shit dictated how reality behaves, no matter how much reality points and laughs at this hubris. The idea that prescriptive assertions dictate the behaviour of the universe is a non-starter among modern physicists.

Second, the topic of the origin of the laws of physics is, wait for it, an active research topic in the physics community. Instead of tossing diligent pursuit of knowledge into the bin as mythology fanboys do, and resorting to “Magic Man did it”, they seek proper, rigorous reasons why the laws of physics we observe to be applicable came into being. I was recently introduced to a very interesting example of the research in question, which was launched by none other than the late Stephen Hawking, and which is being continued by his colleague Thomas Hertog, covered in more detail in this article by Hertog himself.

Let’s see what Hertog has to say on the subject, shall we? He begins by noting:

@Thomas Hertog

In the old days, it was thought that the apparent design of the cosmos meant there had to be a designer—a God. Today, scientists instead point to the laws of physics.

After some preamble, he then moves on to:

@Thomas Hertog

But where do the laws of physics come from? From Albert Einstein to Hawking in his earlier work, most 20th-century physicists regarded the mathematical relationships that underlie the physical laws as eternal truths. In this view, the apparent design of the cosmos is a matter of mathematical necessity. The universe is the way it is because nature had no choice.

What is then revealed is the following:

@Thomas Hertog

We set out to rethink cosmology from an observer’s perspective. This required adopting the strange rules of quantum mechanics, which govern the microworld of particles and atoms.

According to quantum mechanics, particles can be in several possible locations at the same time, a property called superposition. It is only when a particle is observed that it (randomly) picks a definite position. Quantum mechanics also involves random jumps and fluctuations, such as particles popping out of empty space and disappearing again.

In a quantum universe, therefore, a tangible past and future emerge out of a haze of possibilities by means of a continual process of observing. Such quantum observations don’t need to be carried out by humans. The environment or even a single particle can “observe.”

That bolded part is key to what follows, which will make several of the veterans here sit up and take notice:

@Thomas Hertog

We discovered that when looking back at the earliest stages of the universe through a quantum lens, there’s a deeper level of evolution in which even the laws of physics change and evolve, in sync with the universe that is taking shape. What’s more, this meta-evolution has a Darwinian flavor.

Variation enters because random quantum jumps cause frequent excursions from what’s most probable. Selection enters because some of these excursions can be amplified and frozen, thanks to quantum observation. The interplay between these two competing forces —variation and selection—in the primeval universe produced a branching tree of physical laws.

The upshot is a profound revision of the fundamentals of cosmology. Cosmologists usually start by assuming laws and initial conditions that existed at the moment of the Big Bang, then consider how today’s universe evolved from them. But we suggest that these laws are themselves the result of evolution.

Now I’m not familiar with the technical details of Hawking’s “sum over histories” cosmology, not least because it involves some fairly esoteric concepts and even more esoteric mathematics, and I don’t claim to possess the skills to understand those technical details, which are probably understood in full by fewer than a dozen people on the entire planet. But since Hertog is one of those fewer than a dozen people on the planet who understands this, because he was a collaborator with Hawking on this work, I regard his reportage on the subject as reliable.Unlike pontifications by mouth on a stick mythology fanboys, who think “Magic Man did it” is a magic spell hand-waving away all the inconvenient data.

Unlike the usual suspects, I don’t pretend to know things I don’t. But what I do claim, is that I’ve paid attention to the thousands of people who performed the hard work of establishing the soundness of the postulates in question. Unlike mythology fanboys.

Meanwhile, Hertog goes further:

@Thomas Hertog

Moreover, the randomness involved means that the outcome of this evolution—the specific set of physical laws that makes our universe what it is—can only be understood in retrospect.

In some sense, the early universe was a superposition of an enormous number of possible worlds. But we are looking at the universe today at a time when humans, galaxies, and planets exist. That means we see the history that led to our evolution.

We observe parameters with “lucky values.” But we are wrong to assume they were somehow designed or always like that.

In short, we are here because the laws of physics permitted our existence, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place. And Hertog tells us that according to the work he and Hawking undertook, the laws of physics are the result of shaping by past interactions. I’m really going to enjoy the way this work will lead to nuclear-strength butthurt among creationist morons, because it postulates that the laws of physics themselves were the product of an evolutionary process. That sound you can hear is me laughing at the ramifications of this so loudly that I’m audible on Mars.

I’m also enjoying the final summing up, viz:

@Thomas Hertog

For almost a century, we have studied the origin of the universe against the stable background of immutable laws of nature. But our theory reads the universe’s history from within and as one that includes, in its earliest stages, the genealogy of the physical laws. It isn’t the laws as such but their capacity to transmute that has the final word.

Future cosmological observations may find evidence of this. For instance, precision observations of gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime—may reveal signatures of some of the early branches of the universe. If spotted, Hawking’s cosmological finale may well prove to be his greatest scientific legacy.

Now I suspect even the regulars here weren’t expecting me to unleash this, but they will doubtless enjoy my doing so immensely.

@Sid

You write and write and write about a tremendous amount and explain very little .

Bullshit. Oh wait, my source for my expositions is peer reviwed scientific papers, written by the people who provided the hard experimental evidence for the requisite postulates. Which doesn’t exist in the ludicrous world of mythology fanboyism.

@Sid

All this chemistry blah blah blah is nothing more than a study of matter in a certain mode , that’s it .

Except that, wait for it,. chemistry is what keeps you going. Quite simply, if key chemical reactions stop, you fucking DIE. As I expounded in more detail in a post above. But it doesn’t surprise me to see you, as a mythology fanboy, sneer at this demonstrable fact.

And, as I expounded above, if the flatulent nonsense peddled by your ilk was anything other than rectally extruded garbage, the pharmaceutical industry as we know it would not exist. Which on its own provides a refutation of your tedious drivel.

@Sid

You haven’t a clue WHY

I’ve more of a clue than you, mythology fanboy. And as part of having more of a clue than you, I understand that the tiresome mythology fanboy resort to “why” is nothing more than petulant, childish carping at the people who do the fucking hard work. Something none of your ilk will ever engage in.

Oh, you and your ilk will exert enough effort to post snide, condescending carping, or fabricate ex recto apologetics in a desperate and failed attempt to use said apologetics as magic spells to conjure your fantasies into reality, but the genuine hard work of acquiring substantive knowledge, and backing up the postulates underpinning said knowledge with reliably repeatable experimental data, is a task you and your ilk will avoid the way Kent Hovind avoided paying taxes.

Quite simply, you’re a blowhard, and a particularly low grade one at that. Do you serve fries with that ignorance you’re peddling?