Big Bang: Is Determinism Possible Beyond It?

[Coldcall]

sry, i thought they were kinda the same...whats the dif?

hehe no you are 100% right. Spot on

 

[thomasxc]

ah.lol

 

[Coldcall]

Actually Lorenz and other chaos scientists were treated like crap for a long time by their peers. Why would that be? Because they blew open the fallacy of determinism.

QM and chaos should have put determinism out of its misery ages ago. I cannot believe some rational philosophers ie.Dennet still hold on to these quaint ideas that everything in the universe is like clockwork - tick tock. The classical world is dead - get over it folks.

 

[thomasxc]

where can i find some good stuff to read about chaos theory?

 

[Coldcall]

thomasxc,

Oh there's lots of good stuff. But probably a good book to start with is Gleick's "Chaos". Its quite old now but still a good kind of science adventure of how the few can defeat the many with great scientific insight.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0749386061/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Wiki for Chaos Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

[Coldcall]

And actually Chaos is also a good argument against some of the zanier predictions from climatologists re AGW. By the way I'm not disputing the current warming just the idea that we can correctly predict the weather across decades.

In our dreams

 

[thomasxc]

thnx...hey, i don't believe in global warming, but that's off topic for this thread, eh?

 

[thomasxc]

i like chaos theory partially because its so easy to understand compared to all this other physics stuff, like string theory, for example.but maybe its just me. I am only an 11th grader.../

 

[Coldcall]

i like chaos theory partially because its so easy to understand compared to all this other physics stuff, like string theory, for example.but maybe its just me. I am only an 11th grader.../

Hey its great you are so interested! Chaos is kind of more accesible as well because you can see it in action all around you; where as String theory is dealing with physics at its most reductive tiniest scale.

Also i think there is far more evidence for Chaos than there is for ST. But its good to see science students interested in what all this stuff means about determinsim, reality etc..

 

[thomasxc]

...i try to be a little more informed thanthe next sixteen year old.../

 

[Coldcall]

thnx...hey, i don't believe in global warming, but that's off topic for this thread, eh?

Yes i think the mods would get upset if we highjack this thread. But hey go to the other forums there is some hellish argument about the subject there

 

[thomasxc]

With the assumption that the Big Bang model is correct, is it conceivable that perhaps the initial state of the universe would in fact determine every single event that ever happened thereafter?

In other words, given the same initial starting condition, could it have possibly resulted in anything different than that of what we know of today, if allowed to play out a second time? This seems very unlikely.

Are not these very words, written by myself, nothing more than a consequence of the initial conditions?

does this implythe absense of free will?

 

[robertm]

does this implythe absense of free will?

I would say that a lack of determinism, also implies the lack of free will.

It seems pretty clear to me that when we look back in time along a certain world line that events are indeed deterministic, however that does not mean that future states are deterministic. So, the past requires determinism, but the present/future do not. One can know the history of a particular system with varying degrees of accuracy knowing the current state; but knowing the past and the current state, future states can not necessarily be predicted i.e. uncertainty. Sort of a running determinism.

 

[thomasxc]

interestingly put.

 

[out of whack]

it's been very clearly explained to you.

On the contrary, what you provided was a series of contradictions.

It seems like nonsense to you because the puzzle of the universe involves a paradox.

A paradox is a logical contradiction that appears when part of your reasoning is incorrect or incomplete. When you see a paradox you should review your thought process to locate the error or omission. Paradoxes disappear once your reasoning is complete and correct. You have so far supplied an abundance of paradoxes.

And your way of dealing with it is by ignoring it

On the contrary, this approach is yours. You see the paradox, find it perfectly acceptable, and proceed as if there was no problem. My approach is to say "stop here, this does not make sense, something is wrong." But you won't have that.

and attempt to make others move away from thinking about it

On the contrary again, I am doing my best to make you really think about what you are asking. It's not duck soup.

According to the 'theory' ...yep theory...that energy cannot be CREATED (or destroyed), then 'cannot be created' would mean that energy must have just popped out.

Complete nonsense. If it cannot be created then it cannot have popped out. A paradox, perhaps?

And don't try to tell me that energy was always there without needing to be inserted or formed

A thing cannot be there before it is formed. If a thing was formed then it was not always there. If you disagree with these premises, please say why.

If you agree with these premises and if you also accept the rules of logic, then you must accept that if a thing was always there then it was not formed.

 

[thomasxc]

whoa. that's hardcore criticism.

 

[robertm]

interestingly put.

Thank you, obviously I am just speculating here with a limited scope of information. I will have to do much more research before I can give a definitive opinion, but I think this view has some validity.

Basically my logic follows as such:

We can determine what has happened in a given system to a certain degree of certainty given enough information, but we can not always determine what will happen in certain systems no matter the amount of information, do to the nature of the system.

whoa. that's hardcore criticism.

In this case, I think it is unfortunately necessary...

 

[thomasxc]

each man is owed his own opinion. that's what this giant forum is for. well, i don't know nearly as much about this topic as others. i stumbled on determinism and ct only today. i don't think we can very well determine what will hapenn, esp. if things happen randomly. or did i just re-state the original thesis? lol

 

[thomasxc]

im not seeing how chaos theory is diff. from determinism. or does CT not necessarily say the future can be determined?im compfuzzled.

 

[Coldcall]

im not seeing how chaos theory is diff. from determinism. or does CT not necessarily say the future can be determined?im compfuzzled.

Yes its a bit confusing because the idea is that out of that chaos emerges order. Except the order itself is not a deterministic. Take our weather for instance; from a wider perspective one could say its an organised system beause we get weather "patterns". However they are changing patterns and even though one can say the overall system appears organised/ordered it would still be impossible to know if it will rain or shine in two weeks.

My advice is if anyone say we can predict this or that ask them for some evidence.

 

[robertm]

Funny, weather patterns are a particularly good example of what I tried to describe.

One could gather a range of data on a certain system (video, audio, radar, wind, temp...) and play it all in reverse and see exactly how the system evolves/evolved in the past, yet one could not necessarily gather the information and extrapolate it to future events. And thus, we have rainfall percentages not certainties.

A time evolving determinism... hhmmmmm...

To predict future states of a dynamic system evolving at the speed of light, one would be required to have time to gather the information (which can't be done >c) and to process the information (which also is limited by c). Thus, creating a circumstance in which the past evolves in a deterministic manner, yet the future is inherently unpredictable.

Sound reasonable/applicable to reality?

 

[Kenny_L]

If a thing was formed then it was not always there.

The thing here is that: you fail to understand that there's a possibility that energy was not always abundant. And you also fail to understand that there's a possibility that all resources (which includes energy and its possible constituents) was not always abundant/there/around. Plus you also fail to understand how something that you might claim to have been 'always there' could 'be there' without the need of being produced/formed. So basically, you're just as clueless as all of us when it comes to understanding how energy (etc) is/became abundant.

Your tendency to label paradoxes (system inconsistencies) as contradictions is fine, as long as you realize that the contradictions that you see are exactly what you should be expecting...because you (and us all) fail to understand how a big fat resource (energy etc) could be just 'plonked' there without being made/manufacturered/produced/formed etc.

Better still...could you please give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

 

[robertm]

The thing here is that: you fail to understand that there's a possibility that energy was not always abundant. And you also fail to understand that there's a possibility that all resources (which includes energy and its possible constituents) was not always abundant/there/around. Plus you also fail to understand how something that you might claim to have been 'always there' could 'be there' without the need of being produced/formed. So basically, you're just as clueless as all of us when it comes to understanding how energy (etc) is/became abundant.

I did not see anyone making definite statements about reality except for you Kenny. I am sure OoW keeps a keen eye out for future 'possibilities', as we all do.

Here is the problem kenny, you are asking that if one assumes that energy is infinite in time then one must answer as to an origin, or an 'abundance' (whatever technical term that is), when and only when one makes that assertion first, then the question ceases to have meaning. Surely you can see the case?

If one were to assume that energy is/was not conserved in time (infinite) then your question might have some validity. You are going to have to show some pretty convincing proofs against the universal conservation of energy on that one though. As far as we know at this point is history, the conservation of energy is one of the most repeatedly confirmed statements about reality. That is why they are "Conservation Laws" not "theories". Granted, most everything should be subject to speculation, good luck.

However, if your main question remains one of the nature of existence, then I am afraid that you will have to abandon that based on the premise above, and the conversations in the thread OoW linked to in an earlier post.

Also, could you please give us your theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

All one must do is show that it is in an eternal state at any time of measurement. If that were the case, then it fully solves the problem/answers the question. "Origin" ceases to have meaning in an infinite system. The property of infinite is homogeneous along a given world-line.

Check out these videos Kenny, they are very reviling as to the nature of an infinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tvU0XKVFTQ"- This one is a little more on the philosophical side, but still good.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Coldcall]

Funny, weather patterns are a particularly good example of what I tried to describe.

One could gather a range of data on a certain system (video, audio, radar, wind, temp...) and play it all in reverse and see exactly how the system evolves/evolved in the past, yet one could not necessarily gather the information and extrapolate it to future events. And thus, we have rainfall percentages not certainties.

A time evolving determinism... hhmmmmm...

To predict future states of a dynamic system evolving at the speed of light, one would be required to have time to gather the information (which can't be done >c) and to process the information (which also is limited by c). Thus, creating a circumstance in which the past evolves in a deterministic manner, yet the future is inherently unpredictable.

Sound reasonable/applicable to reality?

Sounds rights to me

Thats why i think that inherently its all unpredictable because all we need is one uncertain variable and that small change works its way through the system creating a big disparity between what we predicted and the observed outcomes.

 

[out of whack]

give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

All you need is to know the meaning of the words you use. Something that was created has not always existed since it did not exist before its creation. So when you assert that something has always existed, what you assert is that it was not created. It's the same assertion. Conversely, when you insist that something was created then what you're saying is that it has not always existed.

 

[Kenny_L]

I did not see anyone making definite statements about reality except for you Kenny. I am sure OoW keeps a keen eye out for future 'possibilities', as we all do.

I have a good opinion Robert. I - too - also hope that OOW keeps an eye out for future possibilities too.

Here is the problem kenny, you are asking that if one assumes that energy is infinite in time then one must answer as to an origin, or an 'abundance' (whatever technical term that is), when and only when one makes that assertion first, then the question ceases to have meaning. Surely you can see the case?

Actually, Robert, when one assumes there is something, then - naturally - that something must have been formed or produced somehow or another. Don't worry about 'time' robert, because time is just a measurement that comes from physical movement, or cycles of physical movement. I'm just focusing on 'resources'. And the interesting thing/question is : how does a big fat piece of resource just get plonked there? So, basically, would you be bold enough to say that this resource is just plonked there without needing to be formed? I'm sure you'd look like an idiot if you tell everybody that such a resource is/was just plonked there without being formed, or without being produced. Because when somebody asks you how can something be plonked there without any links to anything else, then you'd just sit there like a clown...empty handed. I'm not saying you...but just giving an honest example.

Naturally, the whole thing is extremely interesting, and quite 'odd' because we don't know what is really going on. It is a true paradoxical situation. Which is why OOW finds contradictions...because we have a paradoxical situation on hand. Just that he/she still doesn't understand the situation.

However, if your main question remains one of the nature of existence, then I am afraid that you will have to abandon that based on the premise above, and the conversations in the thread OoW linked to in an earlier post.

My main question relates to...if you (and ooW) assume that a resource has always been around, then how do you explain HOW that resource has always been around - without the need for being formed or produced by something else. That is, you seriously believe that a fat resource is plonked there without any links or ties to anything else? You would very typically and necessarily assume that this resource is not plonked there (with no relation to anything else). And if you or OOW asks 'why' we would necessarily assume that the resource CANNOT be just plonked there without any relation to anything else, then it would mean that you're not thinking 'straight'.

On the other hand, if one tries to imagine how a resource could suddenly appear/pop out without needing to be made/formed/produced by anything else, then there is still no way to come up with any explanation anyway. Basically, we're all clueless about how the universe is here/abundant.

Check out these videos Kenny, they are very reviling as to the nature of an infinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tvU0XKVFTQ"- This one is a little more on the philosophical side, but still good. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for those links Robert. They are great clips, and I reckon that Carl Sagan is a great person. I'm a fan of Carl Sagan actually. I have his cosmos collection on DVD.

 

[thomasxc]

lets say that some matter is transormed into energy. did that energy just come into existence, or was it technically always there?

 

[out of whack]

It makes no sense to 'plonk' what is already there. Simple as that. If it has always been there then - naturally - that thing was not 'plonked'. It's irrelevant to qualify the thing as abundant or rare, big and fat or thin and lean. When you assert that it was always there, the direct corollary is that it had no origin; you have to reach outside logic to say otherwise. Imagining that it comes from something else must be some sort of emotional feel-good fantasy because it seems to take a tenacious hold on certain people.

 

[thomasxc]

Better still...could you please give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

the term "origin" does not exist in a system which has existed forever.

 

[out of whack]

Just for fun...

Actually, Robert, when one assumes there is something, then - naturally - that something must have been formed or produced somehow or another.

Interesting. So if something must come from something then there cannot be an ultimate origin. Most interesting.

how does a big fat piece of resource just get plonked there?

This is a loaded question of course. It contains the gratuitous assumptions that some resource is big and fat and that it needs to be plonked. It must be just figurative because none of it is substantiated, just assumed.

So, basically, would you be bold enough to say that this resource is just plonked there without needing to be formed?

Oh no, I wouldn't dare say that. You cannot plonk something without forming it. That would be a logical contradiction that nobody here wants to make.

I'm sure you'd look like an idiot if you tell everybody that such a resource is/was just plonked there without being formed, or without being produced. Because when somebody asks you how can something be plonked there without any links to anything else, then you'd just sit there like a clown...empty handed.

Indeed, that would be absurd. Good thing we're not saying that. Now, if someone were to insist that existence had an origin and therefore came out of nowhere, they yes, they may look rather foolish.

I'm not saying you...

I wonder if you had anyone else in mind. :uhh:

It is a true paradoxical situation. Which is why OOW finds contradictions...because we have a paradoxical situation on hand.

As we were saying, a paradox is something man-made. It arises when your logic is flawed. You can look it up in a dictionary.

Just that he/she still doesn't understand the situation.

This much is true. I'm not irrational enough to understand contradictory questions loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions.

if you (and ooW) assume that a resource has always been around, then how do you explain HOW that resource has always been around - without the need for being formed or produced by something else.

The explanation is right under your nose: it has always been around! If it's already there, there is no need to form it using something else. It's there already. Get it? It's already there. You don't need to plonk it. I know it's already there because you've just said that it's always been around. You're the one who just said so. Right there. In your sentence. You said it. Look again. Read it again. You've just said so.

That is, you seriously believe that a fat resource is plonked there without any links or ties to anything else?

No, of course not. If it's plonked then it's plonked from something. You cannot plonk without a plonker. If you say it was plonked, then it was plonked from something, it wasn't there before you plonked it. Right. If you plonk it, then clearly it wasn't there before the plonk. If you plonk it, it didn't always exist, it came from some sort of plonkogenic source that had to be there before the plonk. This is elementary plonkology.

You would very typically and necessarily assume that this resource is not plonked there (with no relation to anything else).

You got it. If it has always been there then it couldn't have been plonked. I agree.

And if you or OOW asks 'why' we would necessarily assume that the resource CANNOT be just plonked there without any relation to anything else, then it would mean that you're not thinking 'straight'.

Oops, you lost it. Back up a bit, you just had it a minute ago.

On the other hand, if one tries to imagine how a resource could suddenly appear/pop out without needing to be made/formed/produced by anything else, then there is still no way to come up with any explanation anyway.

Right again, as previously confirmed above. If it appeared then it must have been made/formed/produced. When you make/form/produce something then, well, it appears, perhaps abundantly. First it isn't there, then it appears. If it was there in the first place then it couldn't possibly appear.

Basically, we're all clueless about how the universe is here/abundant.

Yeah. We're clueless about what existed before existence. We're clueless about when time began. We're clueless about all circular and/or contradictory questions that make no sense. But we do pretty well with coherent questions.

Hey, logic didn't work. Maybe humor will.

 

[robertm]

This is elementary plonkology.

Exactly my point! :rofl:

Hey, logic didn't work. Maybe humour will.

Well it's always worth a try. I am starting to run out of explanatory techniques here though!

I'm rooting for you Kenny! You can do it!

 

[Kenny_L]

It makes no sense to 'plonk' what is already there. Simple as that. If it has always been there then - naturally - that thing was not 'plonked'. It's irrelevant to qualify the thing as abundant or rare, big and fat or thin and lean. When you assert that it was always there, the direct corollary is that it had no origin; you have to reach outside logic to say otherwise. Imagining that it comes from something else must be some sort of emotional feel-good fantasy because it seems to take a tenacious hold on certain people.

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy. Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand. We won't allow you to deviate from the fact that energy is a 'resource', and according to logic, resources are formed...in some way or another. You already know this, but you just choose to stay away from it. If you reckon that a resource (energy and company) was never produced by anything, then you're not much better than religious debaters that reckon that something of theirs was 'always hanging around'. My point of view comes from knowing that a resource must be formed, and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin. And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

 

[out of whack]

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy.

It was your own premise.

Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand.

No, that premise is not the reason for the logical contradiction. Despite your characterization of it, it's a perfectly consistent premise to assert that something has always existed, it contains no paradox. The paradox arises when you add the impossibility that what was already there also had a beginning. This is what causes the problem. You can't have it both ways.

We won't allow you

Huh? You must be royalty to speak of yourself in the plural form. Surely you noticed how nobody else on this scientific forum has presented arguments in support of your untenable position. I'm sure you would get better numbers on a psychic or mystic forum.

to deviate from the fact that energy is a 'resource',

I never disputed or even addressed your definition of energy as a resource, let alone deviate in some way... You're imagining things. Again. Besides, you didn't even define what you mean by 'resource' for the purposes of this discussion. We shan't get too precise, shall we.

and according to logic, resources are formed...in some way or another.

Baloney. Logic says no such thing. Ask anyone who has completed Logic 101. You have to establish premises first, which you have not done. Basically, you are blowing thin smoke without knowing it.

My point of view comes from knowing that a resource must be formed,

You don't even know that. If you have proof, show it. I will of course remember that you have already dismissed scientific theories as "just theories" in previous posts so you will need something pretty strong to regain any credibility.

and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin.

Complete nonsense once again. It's not what "I" think of infinity that matters, it's what the word stands for to everyone's understanding of the term.

And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

If it's a contradiction then it's nonsense. If you believe it then you're cognitive system is failing you. You will be well advised to start paying more attention to what others are saying instead of insisting that nonsense makes sense.

 

[robertm]

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy. Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand.

Quite to the contrary, the paradox arises only when one takes your position. It is called an 'infinite regress'. Look see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress"

...and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin.

I think that you have not yet grasped the meaning and implications of infinity. This statement clearly shows your misunderstanding.

Infinity- (∞) quantity whose value is unbounded
Unbounded- having no boundaries or limits
Boundary- Something that indicates a border or limit.

Would you not say that an origin is a boundary? Well, that is a loaded question, of course an origin is a boundary. It marks where some event begins, and another ends.

Therefore, since infinity is that which has no boundary, no infinity can have the quality of being bound. Thus, it cannot have the quality of origin.

That is how your statement and your previous questions are inherently flawed.

And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

The statement that your queries are contradictory in their nature is not one of opinion. It is one of clear logic based on the complete understanding of the terms invoked.

I believe I am correct in stating that all of us are here to gain a better understanding of reality that we experience through stimulating discussion and the solid use of logic and reason. Not to run and hide in the face of a difficult question, which is what you are accusing several members of. We would not still be having this discussion if that were the case; please at least give credit where it is due.

No one has claimed, as of yet, to know any absolute fact about the nature of the fundamental constituents of the universe. No one has claimed that the conservation of energy is 100% fact, simply very well accounted for. No one has even claimed that energy dose not have an origin, simply that on some fundamental level, it most likely does not.

All that I object to is the way in which you ask a meaningless question.So, now that we have fully hijacked this thread, what do you think about the OP's query? The deterministic/non-deterministic nature of reality?

 

[Kenny_L]

Quite to the contrary, the paradox arises only when one takes your position. It is called an 'infinite regress'. Look see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress"

I think that you have not yet grasped the meaning and implications of infinity. This statement clearly shows your misunderstanding.

robert...I have definitely grasped the definition of infinity. The issue here is not our understanding of infinity, but the paradoxical situation. The paradox is : things are always created...but yet, some people assume that the 'universe' is 'infinite'. So here, there is a direct clash of conditions. And nobody knows what is the deal with this situation.

That is how your statement and your previous questions are inherently flawed.

My statements aren't flawed robert. I'm only summarising the paradoxical situation...that is, 'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT. The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another. I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'. Nevertheless, the universe IS here, and hanging around, which makes things very interesting indeed. Talking about 'infinity' is meaningless, although infinity is very interesting. Talking about how a universe (resources) IS/BECAME abundant is the most interesting though. And nobody knows how (as already mentioned - it is a great puzzle, probably the greatest).

The statement that your queries are contradictory in their nature is not one of opinion. It is one of clear logic based on the complete understanding of the terms invoked.

I already mentioned that it is natural for you to see contradictions, because...afterall...I'm talking in the area of a paradoxical situation. It's just that I understand both sides of the story, and both sides meet up at the paradox.

The other thing is...I recall that you mentioned something about 'energy being infinite in time'...or you were quoting this from somewhere. Now, that statement there is quite meaningless...otherwise ambiguous. Do you mean to say from this statement that there is infinite amount of energy in the whole 'universe'? When I mean universe, I mean the whole package...including what happened before/after the 'big bang' thing, and whatever extra dimensions are out there. Or do you mean to say that energy has always existed?