Dear Paul,
- I assume that the universe, and all the objects in it, exist independent of subjective observers
* The ancient Greeks entertained a universe of crystalline spheres; Newton gave us gravitation, making crystalline spheres unnecessary; Einstein gave us distortion of space-time by mass doing away with action at a distance. Mr. Zweistein in 2055 will give us...doing away with space-time. So, at least by means of induction I have shown that an observer-independent universe is elusive.
The elegant and stringent answer is of course 'Kant', e.g. the a priori conditions of the possibility of experience (space, time and causation).
- I also assume that the universe existed in the past
* Isn't TIME the domain in which we lie? A good lie, then, is one that claims a past not contradicting the present. The number of good lies though is extremely high, particularly when there are no witnesses left...Another important requirement for a good lie is NO MIRACLES!
- I can then ask the question: what was the universe like in the past? Using our best current theories, our best guess is that 10e-6 sec after BB the universe was a sea of quarks...
* See above (Sincerely, I'm not here suggesting that you're lying in any amoral sense!) Tempus systems were added to archaic languages at about 1000-500 BC, but remained restricted to lyrics, epos and tale telling until historiography in the 18/19th century laid claim to scientific status. The idea that there is something like a universal history of mankind is a unique idea of European romanticism, which Darwin extended to nature in general. Lying in this 'scientific' sense about the past has become conventional, but remained dogmatic (other than Newton's laws!).
- I can then argue about how, eventually, these quarks came to form complex life (ie my essay)
* See above: too many miracles (emergences). Try to tell a friend what you did last week involving one two 'emergences' and see what happens.
Some of your comments particularly confuse me:
- [As we know] doesn't Newton's apple fall in TIME, since there is no TIME to be found in the equations of motion. HL
There is an equation of motion that governs how the apple moves in time?
* A falling apple can be observed for the reason that in the sentence: "The apple falls" nothing is moving. Likewise is the result of the equations of motion a trajectory or an orbit, a geometrical figure in general, which neither moves itself nor any of its parts.
- there are as many theories of natural evolution as there are biologists, and as many stories of the Big Bang as there are cosmologists. HL
In my understanding, in terms of the general details there is 1 commonly agreed upon theory of natural evolution, and 1 commonly agreed upon story of the Big Bang. Of course there is disagreement at the edges of the theories, but as with every theory it's likely that these will be ironed out with time.
* Try to tell your friend how you passed the exam with all the details missing...
- any theory of evolution is subjective (as the term is commonly used) by being truly objective, i.e. object-in-TIME centered, rather than inter-subjective [as e.g. Newton's laws]. This is why I said that telling the story of the universe as it TRULY evolved, would require you to erase your brain first. HL
I struggle to see how the former sentence implies the second?
* The point is indeed difficile. Let me try an analogy: Wouldn't it be a farce when the head of the university's mathematics department dresses up like a student, passes the exam summa cum laude+++ and then says: I knew it's absolutely straight forward and simple. The point is, the professor cannot recover the status of a student. They experience different mathematical 'worlds'. The universe at tau 1e-6 as it Really was, wasn't given to anyone - so back to top of post.
Have a nice weekend,
Heinrich