Big Bang: Is Determinism Possible Beyond It?

[out of whack]

Although, if anybody is able to explain how this resource achieves its 'theoretical' state of having always been around without needing to be created or produced by something else, then I'm all ears.

Your first error, yet again: if energy has always been around then it did not need to be created. Try harder to understand that the word 'always' means that there was no origin. That's what it means. Really. Using both terms like you do is talking nonsense.

Your second error: nobody claims that energy appears without being produced by something else. You made that up.

Your third error: if a 'something else' existed before energy then you still could not say how that one began. Your big question remains unanswerable.

 

[Kenny_L]

Your first error, yet again: if energy has always been around then it did not need to be created.

Not at all. You just don't understand the situation, even though it's been very clearly explained to you. I said that before already.

Try harder to understand that the word 'always' means that there was no origin. That's what it means. Really. Using both terms like you do is talking nonsense.

It seems like nonsense to you because the puzzle of the universe involves a paradox. And your way of dealing with it is by ignoring it, and attempt to make others move away from thinking about it, by introducing the meaningless remark about 'if it was always there, then just accept it and forget it...and anything you ask about it is meaningless'...which is basically meaningless in itself.

Your second error: nobody claims that energy appears without being produced by something else. You made that up.

See...what's where you're not thinking. 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. And don't try to tell me that energy was always there without needing to be inserted or formed...because I wouldn't believe you, unless you provided some kind of believable idea about how energy is/became abundant (or achieved this kind of condition). Go ahead...give it a try if you dare. Just don't come back with the same tactic of branding sensible and meaningful questions as being 'meaningless'.

Your third error: if a 'something else' existed before energy then you still could not say how that one began. Your big question remains unanswerable.

That's not an error, but you're merely seeing the paradox, which is promising. My question (and the same question asked by many many others too) has been unanswerable so far, because it is afterall about the biggest puzzle in the 'universe'.

 

[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?

see:wiki-the butterfly effect

 

[Coldcall]

see:wiki-the butterfly effect

No no not chaos! The great defeater of the Determinist's clan! Thank heavens for Lorenz

 

[thomasxc]

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

 

[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.