jasoncran said:
do things by themselves go from simple to complex.
(There's a sublime humor in this question having no question mark...)
The answer is, "Yes. All-the-time. All around you, every single day."
Snowflake formation. That snowflake is significantly more organized and complex than that moist air.
The flow of unorganized water molecules from atmospheric dispersion, to cloud, to raindrop, to surface water to stream to river. That river is significantly more organized and complex than that moist air.
Salt precipitation in water
The formation of petrified wood.
The compaction of a sand dune into sandstone.
ripples sand under shallow seas.
Sand dunes.
The disks around Saturn.
The planets themselves, for that matter, and their organization with a metal core surrounded by molten oxide inner mantle, etc.
The separation of milkfat from skim milk upon sitting.
The breaking of cream while attempting a stroganoff.
The cohesion of sourdough bread upon baking.
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
I think your error is in trying to apply the theory of entropy on a small system. In any thermodynamics equation the most common mistake in in drawing the "system" too small for the physics that is actually driving it. Failing to account for disorganization in a far-flung area which lends energy to the small area of study.
Moreover, the discovery of quantum physics opens windows that Newton never knew existed in the reaction being far far from the action.
In the area of evolution itself (which I think was your main thrust in asking whether complex can come from simple) the well-understoof mechanism of many types of speciation is the very elegantly simple
duplication followed by specialization. Many people are stumped by the seeming barrier of "what good is half an eye" or "what good is half a leg". The mechanism that resolves this mental barrier is the knowledge that very often these things develop through
duplication followed by specialization. In this process the organism will first mutate to produce
extra somethings. Whether it is extra stubs, or extra light sensitive cells or extra flaps. Once those genetic duplications (which are very very common and can be seen in the lab today) exist, at that point it is not a detriment to the organism as it goes through further mutation of the extra which can sometimes result in a very useful organ. So one can then see that "half a leg" is the intermediate step between an extra stub and a full leg, and that there was no biological reason why it had to be "useful" along its evolution, any more than people with six fingers today find their sixth finger "useful" (they often don't). But if that sixth finger further mutates to have a claw or webbing or some further mutation that then turns out to be useful after that initial useless duplication, you have now gained a "new" appendage that is "useful" by way of a "half a claw".
So whether it is the inorganic processes which include star formation (has been seen,
HubbleSite - Out of the ordinary...out of this world.) or the organic processes which include reproduction with mutation, yes we see constantly around us things going "by themselves" from simple to more complex.
And it's a
delightfully fascinating area of study that holds many awesome events!
SO if no object from our universe can pass to the other and vice versa as they each have their own rules how can we test that it did come that way? we cant.
There are several levels of discussion appropriate for this - all are interesting - that don't depend upon each other. The testable presentce of antimatter opens up an understanding of things that used to be untestable but now can be shown to breach barriers that we thought before were impnetrable.
At the same time, there is always a degree of supposing when one is creating an experimental plan. First one "guesses" at a possible mechanism, then one sits down and tries to mercilessly attack one's own guess. By this method one makes an experiment to test it. Typically, the first and tenth and 50th experiment do not "prove" the hypothesis, we say instead whether they "support" it. So if some tests support a hypothesis, you might call that guessing, but it's the first step toward understanding with a robust background in order to later "accept" the hypothesis (provisionally, always subject to destruction by new evidence) as a working model that can be relied upon at that time.
There's a very interesting thread on a different site about whether there is any physical support for string theory. Some people accept the model as a working theory, some others (all atheists, BTW) consider it just someone's pet dream of unification with no support. so it's an interesting debate, but the commonality between all of them is that you start with some small supporting evidence and it builds up from that.
one universe having another set of laws cant "create" another universe without transfering energy to the other and then cease to be and remain to be testable and verifable.
But one may see evidence of a transfer in other ways and one could possibly see small examples of such a transfer which then have no reason
not to be analogous to a larger system. An example of this may be in the study of black holes and how they behave leading to a new understanding or discovery of matter or energy that is not from our current universe. There are many forms of energy and matter that have only recently been detected that lead to interesting questions. Neutrinos, anti matter, dark matter, dark energy and gravitational waves on teh cosmic background to name a few.
argument by analogy it the atom smasher isnt a possiblity.if say entropy didnt exist in the singularity and we do see singularities in the is universe and they break down how can that first singularity ever be?
What makes you think there was a first? Where is the beginning of a circle?
what makes a universe change it own rules?
interaction with something else, perhaps? What makes the earth change its magnetic poles? If existence is bigger than our universe, what would prevent some other action from happening on a universe?
Can you give me a reason that there has to be a first universe or that something we don't know about yet can't exert known physical/energetic effects on ours or any other universe?
(btw, your thread title is funny. A pretty bold claim, there!)
