Are All Events Predetermined By The Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oblivion
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion explores whether all events are predetermined by the Big Bang, asserting that the movement and interaction of particles since then have been dictated by physical laws. It argues that while everything can be traced back to the Big Bang, living beings possess the ability to think and make choices, which introduces the potential for altering predetermined outcomes. However, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics suggests that not all actions can be predicted, as some events are fundamentally random. The conversation highlights the tension between determinism and free will, emphasizing that while many actions may seem predetermined, the complexity of variables and human consciousness allows for unpredictability. Ultimately, the debate centers on the interplay between mathematical determinism and the unpredictability of conscious decision-making.
  • #61
Originally posted by Qurious
assumption. Assumption underlies the entire argument from the very beginning.
Assumption is present as a part of life. We have to start somewhere. I'll never deny that anything I say is based on some assumption...

Another God stated that agruing that what caused the big bang is irrelevant because the answer to what came before is inconclusive, however, that is rather hypocritical of the fact that the arguing that we are all determined is also inconclusive.
I never meant to say that arguing over what caused the big bang was irrelevant (in itself), what I did mean to say was that Arguing about what caused the big bang, with the aim of undermining determinism is irrelevent.

We are trying to argue over whether we are determined or not. That is the argument at hand that we are trying to solve to some degree. To do that we need to use logic and factual tidbits of evidence that build an inductive picture. To use these tools, by perhaps pointing out that "God created the universe with a word, God gave us freewill, therefore you are wrong", you would have to have everyone agree to the premise that God gave us freewill. In the case of the big bang, I don't know what the big bang is, when it occured, or what its 'true' relevence is to 'The Universe' (in the uppermost sense of the word), so using it as a premise for an argument is lost until it is clarrified exactly what it is. Unfortunately, I am not willing to get into an argument about the big bang here. I have heard enough and unless someone has some Earth shattering insight, I am certain no ground will be made beyond pure speculation.

Lets look objectively at some statements.

Another God: Everything in the universe is determined because the universe is all the variables of the universe, and if known, we could predict every single action implying that we are all pre-determined.
That is a paraphrase of me isn't it? I had to check, because if I did write that, then I apologise, because it is confusing of what I actually mean. If I didn't write it, then I will explain exactly why I wouldn't say that right now.

The universe is determined Because it is (or isn't, whatever...). The reason the universe is determined is not something I have attempted to explain, justify, to talk about. I am purely describing what I believe the unvierse to be, not explaining why it is that way.

If I am correct, then in being so determined the implication is that for any given moment: The Laws of the universe combined with the precise position of everything within the universe will determine exactly where everything will be in the next moment, and every moment there after (aswell as everymoment before). KNowledge need have nothing to do with this, but the implication for knowledge is obvious: If you 'know' the laws and location of everything, then you could predict the future, and predict the past precisely.

Just to clarify, none of the last two paragraphs are evidence for determinism. They are simply explanations of what determinism are, and what it entails. This isn't my argument for a belief in determinism at all.

I'm not sure why no one caught this, but this has a much relevancy to prove the position that we are determined and that free will is inconsistant with physical laws as I am to say

Qurious: The entire universe can be codified into a matematical equation, except for our coinciousness and the will to choose. These equations (the equation of free will) were specifically made by god itself and are entirely random. The very essence of being, the very essence of god, of an emergent property bound by no determinism except of an emergence from nothing is tantamount to consciousness and our ability to choose.
Hopefully you will now understand that you needn't demonstrate how the above isn't an argument. It was never meant to be an argument. It was a clarrification of what the argument was about. You're example just there is simply a claim as to what you (or someone) may beleive, it is neither an argument (obviously), nor is it a description of what God is, what is entailed by this belief, or what consciousness is.

Now logically thinking, you cannot seriously say that Another God's position holds any more sound reasoning than mine. The assumptions of the determinists: we can codify the entire universe into an equation and that no equations within the one that would be part of the larger equation are completely random and this implies that we are completely determined.
That is the determinist claim, it is not in itself reasoning. I can give u my reasoning for it again if you want, I don't mind, but I won't do it until someone asks, to save everyone else the boredom of reading it all again...

Finally, the fact of the matter is that to believe that we don't have free-will seems counterintuitive. Though I accede the fact that it is POSSIBLE that we are determined, until I have overwhelming evidence I will follow my feelings because though we might be determined I cannot predict what is going to happen next and therefore I perceive that I have free-will, and perception is all that matters, its what describes our reality.
SO in the end, you haven't undermined any of my arguments, and your argument in reply is that 'it seems like we do'. "It seems like we do" is not a convincing argument at all sorry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
It baffles me why people who don't believe in freewill should argue about it, nobody's free to change their minds. Still, I suppose they have no choice.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Canute
It baffles me why people who don't believe in freewill should argue about it, nobody's free to change their minds. Still, I suppose they have no choice.
Exactly.

It continues to baffle me why people can't get their head around that fact either. Ironicly, you have shown that you have to some extent got your head around it, yet something inside of you won't let you accept that that is the case. Just because people don't have the "Free choice" to change their mind, doesn't mean that their situation can't alter their minds. I thought this point would be obvious by now, particularly by my last post made RE the society of natural science.
 
  • #64
The Laws of the universe combined with the precise position of everything within the universe will determine exactly where everything will be in the next moment

No, position is a classical variable and quantum mechanics isn't deterministic in classical variables:

Quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory. It is just deterministic in a different set of variables, namely the wavefunction and its conjugate.

See!

I have heard a little bit about this type of quantum determinism, but it isn't classical (Newtonian) determinism. The deterministic wavefunction relates to probabilities that help predict outcomes. It is quite random still.

In short, I disagree.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by jackle
In short, I disagree.

Position doesn't always need to be taken in terms of 'Classical physics' vs 'Quantum Physics' etc. You could just take it as lay speak for 'Where stuff is'.

If you would like, I will re-state it, once again:

The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be.

Seriously though, its the concept you need to grasp, not the semantic nuances.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Another God
Exactly.

It continues to baffle me why people can't get their head around that fact either. Ironicly, you have shown that you have to some extent got your head around it, yet something inside of you won't let you accept that that is the case. Just because people don't have the "Free choice" to change their mind, doesn't mean that their situation can't alter their minds. I thought this point would be obvious by now, particularly by my last post made RE the society of natural science. [/B]
You've interpreted my post in an odd way. My point was that a wordl in which people argue that there is no such thing as freewill and that our every action is involuntary, being entirely phsyically determined, is a very strange place. Why ever would the question come up in the first place? It makes the world an even stranger place than it would be if freewill existed.

Still, when you say - "The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be" I wouldn't disagree. It does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill.
 
  • #67
Canute, Another God: I prefer my definition of freewill to include making the choice to be in the physical framework. Once here, i will then obey the rules, etc of the physical world. BUT - I also suspect that we can change some of the Laws and State of the Universe as we go along. We only need to learn/discover/rediscover the process.

Why limit our views to the physical universe where we have a body? my consciousness is beyond physical. let's use our resources to expand our abilities. why argue for limitations? need i repeat the old saw?

my personal experience has been that the more i ask myself to accomplish the more success i have. this includes thinking 'outside ANY box'.

peace,
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Another God
Position doesn't always need to be taken in terms of 'Classical physics' vs 'Quantum Physics' etc. You could just take it as lay speak for 'Where stuff is'.

But stuff is made out of sub-atomic components and these are not necessarily at a definite point in space or if they are, they may be traveling with any old momentum. This is the basics of the uncertainty principle.

The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be.

Scientists who have studied physics for their whole lives still question this.

Seriously though, its the concept you need to grasp, not the semantic nuances.

I do grasp the concept. As a youth, I found the Newtonian world view was so compelling that I came to your conclusion. It seemed obvious and easy to prove. When I studied modern physics, I realized that determinism (especially the type I believed in) need not hold true at all.
 
  • #69
olde drunk

I can go along with that. Do you know Sartre?
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Canute
Why ever would the question come up in the first place? It makes the world an even stranger place than it would be if freewill existed.
Funnily enough, it actually needn't change anything...IN fact, that is precisely my belief, that things ARE as they are, and we ARE determined. So that we should as this question isn't so strange, it is precisely the sort of question our minds are prone to ask (ie: Predestined to ask). If you elvove a mind like our, one which has to achieve certain things (calculating the distance and flight time of a spear or a rock etc), and you push that brain a little bit further, you get a mind which works in a particular way. The fact that we ask any questions of our universe has to be accepted as the sort of thing we do, and that one question such as this has come up is inevitable. It is simply how the biochemistry of our brain works. We needn't free will ourselves into asking it, it is just what we ask by our brains very nature.


Still, when you say - "The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be" I wouldn't disagree. It does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill.
I love it when people say that. It sort of amuses me. I mean...OK, i can agree with what you said...but I don't really know exactly what you have in mind by 'it does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill'. Because if the very next moment is precisly determined, then so are our actions...and so by deduction, obviously we cannot change that fact. So if by 'possibility to have free will' you mean 'Possibility to do the thing that our brain tells us to do (which we believe we are choosing)', then SURE, I agree completely. We have 'free will' (which I call lack of free will.)
 
  • #71
Originally posted by Another God
Funnily enough, it actually needn't change anything...IN fact, that is precisely my belief, that things ARE as they are, and we ARE determined. So that we should as this question isn't so strange, it is precisely the sort of question our minds are prone to ask (ie: Predestined to ask).
That's not quite what I meant. Things are certainly as they are, and according to the physical evidence we may or may not have freewill.

But a world in which automata argue about whether they are automata or not is a strange one. Why would they do it? In particular, why is not possible to prove it one way or the other? It should be trivial matter to disprove freewill. After all if it doesn't exist in humans, who feel that it does, then it probably doesn't exist at all. In this case it seems certain that it is impossible for it to exist. If it cannot possible exist we ought to be able to prove it.

This doesn't prove anything, but it's strange world that let's us hold a delusion of freewill consistently over evolutionary time without it ever once contradicting the evidence, without it bestowing any evolutionary advantage, and without one single example of a human who felt like they didn't possesses and exercise it.

I love it when people say that. It sort of amuses me. I mean...OK, i can agree with what you said...but I don't really know exactly what you have in mind by 'it does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill'. Because if the very next moment is precisly determined, then so are our actions...and so by deduction, obviously we cannot change that fact. So if by 'possibility to have free will' you mean 'Possibility to do the thing that our brain tells us to do (which we believe we are choosing)', then SURE, I agree completely. We have 'free will' (which I call lack of free will.) [/B]
The apparent contradiction arises from the difference between causes that are sufficient and causes that are necessary. Physically determinate causes (or contingent conditions) are clearly necessary to account for our actions and reactions. The question is whether they are sufficient to account for it.
 
  • #72
Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?
 
  • #73
one more time

do we believe that we are the product of the physical world? OR, do we believe that we created the physical world?

i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness. hence, no prdetermination.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?
I can't answer these I'm afraid. I suspect that we're looking at it in the wrong way.

But I don't believe in some God who made humans conscious and gave them freewill and nobody else. We are animals, if we have freewill then animals have freewill, if we don't they don't.

The continuum idea is nearest my conjecture.

Don't tell me Dennett has written another one. I've given him every chance, this one I'm definitely not reading.
 
  • #75
I read it. It's called Freedom Evolves. It's a, well mostly, Darwinist defense of compatibilism. Reminds me of somebody's description of Edwards speaking in New Hampshire; while I was reading Dennett I was almost persuaded of his argument. But after I finished the book, I concluded his arguments were special pleading, if not obfuscation. I put this book way below Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
 
  • #76


i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness...[/B]


No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.
 
  • #77


Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.

“The system of shared experience which we call the world is viewed as building itself out of elementary quantum phenomena, elementary acts of observer-participancy. In other words, the questions that the participants put – and the answers they get – by their observing devices, plus their communication of their findings, take part in creating the impressions which we call the system: that whole great system which to a superficial look is time and space, particles and fields.”
John Wheeler (from Martin Rees ‘Before the Beginning’ Simon and Schuster 1997 London

"Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge...It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two ‘I’s’ are identical, namely, when one disregards all their special content—their Karma...When a man dies, his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier."
Erwin Schroedinger.

“The idea behind modern phenomenalism would be that neither the transcendental object not subject exists in any concrete sense. Instead, one would postulate various possible combinations of phemomenal objects, the most coherent, complex and structured of which could be viewable as constituting emergent conceptual minds such as our own. In this case, the universe could be seen as fundamentally rooted in phenomena or mind.”
Edward Barkin (Journal of Consciousness Studies 2003 Vol 10, 8 p 5)
 
  • #78
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined. If it wasn't determined at a point of time, that's just another way of saying "it has not ever been determined" in which case it is not predetermination.

So EVERYTHING cannot be predetermined- but perhaps everything after a certain point can. But what sense does that make? The insant everything was predetermined has to be the same instant it was decided to be predetermined, and nothing could have lead up to that. It had to be pure random.

So pure random decided what will be preditermined (since if anything led up to what will be preditermined, that was the actual moment of predetermination). If pure random decided what will be predetermined... Isn't that the same as saying whatever happens is random, which is the same as saying it ISN'T preditermined?
 
  • #79
I think you have a point about the regression of causes. But randomness does not imply lack of determination.
 
  • #80


Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.


as QM progresses, more and more 'modern scientific' thought, via super string and M theories, the "observer" becomes the creator of the observed or measured.

the olde tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound because it doesn't exist unless someone is there to see (create) it.

i believe Brian Greene will be publishing a new book which may expand the above.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Sikz
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined.
Imaginary time again? Where's Tom?
 
  • #82
someone indulge me...

Define Randomness...

then "Chaos"...
 
  • #83
Randomness:
the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

Chaos:
Of a system having a sensitivity to perturbances in an exponential fashion. A positive lyapunov exponent.
 
  • #84
Originally posted by Sikz
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at?
It either was always determined, or it never will be.
 
  • #85
It either was always determined, or it never will be.

I think you've missed some of my point- it can't be "always" determined. If the determination occurred out of time, we can correctly say it never happened (since if something has not happened in the past it has "never happened, by definition). If the determination occurred within time there is one point in time that we can designate as the time determination occurred. But whatever point we label as that will have a reason for being that point and points before it that decided what would be determined; and THOSE points should be the real point of determination. If we trace that line back to the very earliest determination of all the other determination, that determination must NOT be decided by anything else (or the decisive factor would be the actual determination point)- therefore what is determined has to be random, which is the same as saying what happens is random, which is the same as saying what happens is not determined.


Random: "The quality of lacking any predictable order or plan."

I would dissagree; that definition is the one used when discussing dice rolls and such, which in actuality are predictable if we have the data. The philosophical definition, then, has to be different. I would propose:

Random: "The quality of lacking any order or plan."

A fox's next action may not be predictable, but that is due to limited knowledge; philosophicly a lack of knowledge on our part does not cause the event we lack knowledge of to be random.


EDIT: I fixed the quote problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Sikz

I agree that's the normal definition. But I also agree with jackle. By this definition the first cause (or first effect) must have been random since no order or plan could have existed before it.

The idea of a 'First Cause' doesn't make much sense in a strictly physically determined universe.
 
  • #87
Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Sikz
Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.

This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.
 
  • #89
This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.

Depending on how you look at it. If we look at time as linear, with the first event being random, then you are correct. But we could say, equally correctly, that the first event was all events encoded into one- and as such its random composition is a random composition of all events. Is there actually a difference, if we view things as utterly causal, between the first event encoding, and thus being, all other events- in which case time is a sort of illusion and the random element is still being implemented into the code- and the first event triggering, encoding, other events but being somehow sepearate?

If the first event contains all information necessary to construct the entirety of the universe at any time, then what reason have we to assume we exist as an "actual" universe apart from that information?
 
  • #90


Originally posted by Canute
You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.

My QM lecturer suffered from ontological doubt, but that's about it. He spent too many long hours studying - needed to get out more!
 

Similar threads

"Big Bang" according to the 19th century poet ("Science-v-Poetry")
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
343
I Questions about the Location of the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
B Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
I Big bang at the edges of the Universe?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Is this device possible (hope not)?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
254
B Age of Universe: Big Bang, Braneworlds & Perspective
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Is Determinism Compatible with the Big Bang Theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Does the Cosmological Principle in any way underpin Big Bang Theory?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
B Did the Big Bang follow multiple bangs? How did matter come to collide?
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K