Why are we "IT"?, page 1

reply to post by jiggerj

Why would the process of quarks to atoms to molecules suddenly stop with us? Wouldn't this be breaking the chain of logic? If A makes B, and B makes C, and C makes D, then surely D makes something else. Right?

Nothing says the process is over.

Further, in an interesting sort of way, D could make A.

It's an "out there" theory - but it's not impossible under the known laws of quantum mechanics.

Simply put - think of the universe like you would a chess board. Each piece represents certain particles, forces, or whatever (it's not an exact analogy - but it conveys the idea). Each turn represents something known as Planck Time (or a Planck Second). Looking at the board, regardless of how the pieces are arranged - you can perform two operations knowing the rules: State what possible moves in the last turn led to the current state of the board - and state what moves can be made this turn (what the board can look like in the next turn).

The operation is recursive. For each possible state (past or future) another set of possible futures/origins stem from it. This can proceed indefinitely.

Presume you walk upon a chess board. Much like us becoming aware of this universe. Did the board start this way? Or was there a game going before we got here? The distinction is moot within quantum mechanics. A past and future can always be inferred from the state of the board. Presuming the past to exist - you know that only one 'path' through the possible list of past turns and states could have been taken by one game.... but you cannot be certain of which one. Your degree of certainty will fall off rapidly (not quite at the inverse square due to 'junctions' along the way - when the same state arises at the same time across multiple paths) as you go farther into the past (or the future).

But - suppose you have a room. You can't see in the room - but you know there to be a chess board and its pieces in the room. That chess board exists in a quantum superposition of all its possible states (presuming we are working with a standard set of pieces and not getting overly creative) before you open the door and look at the board (we're dealing with an analogy, here; not making the argument that things are actually in a superposition when not directly observing them... although that is an intriguing bit of food for thought). Basically - before you opened the door, you knew that board could exist in a finite number of possible states (not sure what the number is - presuming we can break the standard rules and place pieces randomly wherever across the board) - but it did not actually take one of those states until you opened the door.

Since it existed in a superposition - you couldn't identify the board having a past, future, or even present. However, once it assumes one defined state, you can infer a past and a future from that board.

In a similar manner - if you were to just happen upon this universe - you could infer a past and a future for it based on information about its current state and the rules by which it functions. Whether or not that past actually existed is irrelevant to the current state and the fact that it can be inferred.

It's not exactly supposed to be a provable theory - but it's an interesting one just the same.