Big Bang: Is Determinism Possible Beyond It?

[Holocene]

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?

 

[waht]

According to quantum mechanics it is impossible to precisely determine the exact whereabouts of particles. So you can't really know what's going on behind the scenes.

Also in QM a superposition principle says that a system exists in many different possible states at any time. But you won't know in which state a system is unless you make a measurement. When you take a measurement, then all those possible states collapse into one state. Fine, but if you take another measurement subsequently, then you might measure something else altogether,that is another state out of a pool of possibilities so to speak.

That's why Einstein said "god does not play dice with the universe."

 

[Coldcall]

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?

I don't think we yet really know the answer to that question. In the classical/Newtonian era before qm theory was developed; most phycists would probaby hedge for a Deterministic universe. Now with qm it's a very contentious issue.

Leaving aside the qm argument, personally my feeling is this universe is at least partly non deterministic. Think about it; what would be the implications for future human progress if we were able to absolutely predict the life from start to finnish? Who you married, homework many kids you would have, who then they would marry and so on...

To me it makes no sense because if we could acurately predict all these things it means we could also predict our own death. So even if we do exist in a deterministic universe i would think that nature would hide the truth as it seems to me to be an antithesis of evolution and biological progress.

 

[Moridin]

At out level of existence, everything is determined.

 

[humanino]

According to quantum mechanics it is impossible to precisely determine the exact whereabouts of particles. So you can't really know what's going on behind the scenes.

In Everret's interpretation, all the possibilities are realized. Nitpicking, sure, especially since already at the classical level one would need to know the initial with infinite precision, which makes the whole procedure useless.

 

[Coldcall]

In Everret's interpretation, all the possibilities are realized. Nitpicking, sure, especially since already at the classical level one would need to know the initial with infinite precision, which makes the whole procedure useless.

I must admit that i find MWI very counter-intuitive and confusing. For instance if one reads the wiki explanation it is highly contradictory. On the one hand MWI purports to not require an observer or even a measurment to take place in order for the branching to occur; but reading the wiki version it mentions "observers" and "measurement". For instance wiki:

"MWI response: the decoherence or "splitting" or "branching" is complete when the measurement is complete. In Dirac notation a measurement is complete when:
where O represents the observer having detected the object system in the i-th state. Before the measurement has started the observer states are identical; after the measurement is complete the observer states are orthonormal.[5][1] Thus a measurement defines the branching process: the branching is as well- or ill- defined as the measurement is. Thus branching is complete when the measurement is complete. Since the role of the observer and measurement per se plays no special role in MWI (measurements are handled as all other interactions are) there is no need for a precise definition of what an observer or a measurement is -- just as in Newtonian physics no precise definition of either an observer or a measurement was required or expected. In all circumstances the universal wavefunction is still available to give a complete description of reality."

Just see how many times those two words are used in that explanation .

However when pushed on why this interpretation keeps using that terminoloy to supposedly describe an observer-less, or measurement-less model - no rational explanation is forthcoming. Instead we are told that in the case of MWI, a measurement is treated as something else. That really is semantic nionsense. Either a measurement is what we all understand it to be or MWI needs to use different terminology.

Other problems i have with MWI include its clear contradiction of nature's conservation of energy. Its no good saying that because there are different universes the principle of energy conservation is still maintained in each single universe. The problem with that argument is that the branch universes are still part of the qm system, so it doesn't matter how many universes one has to play with they are actually part of the same physics platform. Where as CI with no tweaking abides by conservation of energy. CI is far more efficient with its use of matter/energy than MWI which wastes it on a scale which makes human decadence appear stingy

Another problem is this idea of a multitude of universes to explain the biophillic tuning of the universe we find ouselves in. I consider any theory which requires an infinite amount of universes as highly dubious apart from the fact it contravenes Occam's priniciple.

So what has MWI got going for it compared to much more simple and straight-forward qm intepretations? Personally the only saving grace i can see is that it attempts (though unsuccessfully) to rid qm of the essentiality of an observer, or conscious measurement. I don't think its enough since it doesn't even do that satisfactorily.

 

[octelcogopod]

I don't think we yet really know the answer to that question. In the classical/Newtonian era before qm theory was developed; most phycists would probaby hedge for a Deterministic universe. Now with qm it's a very contentious issue.

Leaving aside the qm argument, personally my feeling is this universe is at least partly non deterministic. Think about it; what would be the implications for future human progress if we were able to absolutely predict the life from start to finnish? Who you married, homework many kids you would have, who then they would marry and so on...

To me it makes no sense because if we could acurately predict all these things it means we could also predict our own death. So even if we do exist in a deterministic universe i would think that nature would hide the truth as it seems to me to be an antithesis of evolution and biological progress.

The universe doesn't appear to play with us, or hide its workings from us.
Just because we are aware of ourselves doesn't mean the universe means for us to not predict everything.
In fact, we've been able to predict almost everything so far, otherwise we wouldn't be able to function in this world.

Which takes me to my next point. There's very little, or most likely zero non determinism in the macroscopic world.
I don't think anyone has encountered a car that suddenly flew or whatever yet.
Why should there be non determinism in the micro/subatomic world?
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is deterministic, then everything since the dawn of space and time could be predicted since then.

Another thing is that if there was non determinism on small scales, why didn't it propagate through the system?

 

[Coldcall]

Hi octelcogopod,

"The universe doesn't appear to play with us, or hide its workings from us"

I think it does "appear" to play with us but that could just be because we don't fully understand how the universe and nature functions.

"In fact, we've been able to predict almost everything so far, otherwise we wouldn't be able to function in this world"

I'm not sure about almost everything. Yes some things, but there are many things we cannot accurately predict and not for want of trying such as the weather, or earthquakes etc..Just because we can predict some things does not necessarily mean we can predict everything. I would just refer to chaos theory for some good examples of classically deterministic systems which demonstrate chaotic results given enough time, or interactons.

And of course on the microscopic scale qm is for the moment (until local variables are shown to exist) non-deterministic, or atleast uncertain. Also that's not taking into account the observer's choices of measurment on a qm system. Obviously that's whole other discussion about free-will

"Which takes me to my next point. There's very little, or most likely zero non determinism in the macroscopic world"

I'd say its mixed and biology may be a non-deterministic aspect of the universe. Our whole lives is a struggle against the clock, the environment etc...it seems to me evolution itself is almost like a struggle against determinism. So i suspect we could have a ying yang thing happening with determinism/non-determinsm, in the same way that the physical constants are so tightly balanced.

"I don't think anyone has encountered a car that suddenly flew or whatever yet."

Well if you calculate the uncertainty principle for a particle and then extrapolate that into an object the size of a car the chances of it flying would probably be close to absolute nil - a virtual impossibility. I think this is why we don't see the car flying. Perhaps someone who understands the HUP better than i can confirm how it is applied to macroscopic objects.

"Why should there be non determinism in the micro/subatomic world?"

I don't know but it appears to be that way.

"If energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is deterministic, then everything since the dawn of space and time could be predicted since then."

Again that's not taking into account quantum fluctuations, or the the uncertainty in qm, or the potential for biological free-will/choice (if its genuine).

"Another thing is that if there was non determinism on small scales, why didn't it propagate through the system?"

We don't know it doesnt. And as i mentioned with chaos theory macroscopic scales also exhibit non-determinstic tendencies. If we really live in a Deterministic universe then we are missing some quite big parts of the physics jigsaw.

However you are in good company with people like Einstein

 

[ShakyJake]

Another thing is that if there was non determinism on small scales, why didn't it propagate through the system?

On large scales you have probabilities that can accurately predict what's going to happen (like radioactive decay), however on a quantum scale you cannot predict with any accuracy what's going on in that region of space.

At the time of the Big Bang, the universe was smaller than Planck's length which makes events during that time period completely unpredictable. If you rewound time and let it all begin again I seriously doubt things would be exactly the same. In fact, the entire structure of the universe was probably determined at this point and possibly the physical laws themselves.

 

[Kenny_L]

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

The thing here is...we don't know what are the initial conditions of everything. We don't even know how the initial conditions got there/here in the first or whatever place.

 

[Kenny_L]

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is deterministic, then everything since the dawn of space and time could be predicted since then./QUOTE]

The 'energy cannot be created or destroyed' theory is not a solid given. It is a theoretical given, but we don't know for sure if this IS completely true for everything out there. One big question is...how did energy 'enter' or come into the equation in the first/whatever place? That is, how did it get there/here. If people reckon it was always there, then it's up to them to provide an explanation of how it got there.

 

[out of whack]

If people reckon it was always there, then it's up to them to provide an explanation of how it got there.

This is a contradiction. If it "got there" then it wasn't always there. What has always been there never "got there". Ever. Claiming that the universe has always existed simply means that it didn't magically appear out of nothing, no further explanation is needed to understand this.

 

[Kenny_L]

This is a contradiction. If it "got there" then it wasn't always there. What has always been there never "got there". Ever. Claiming that the universe has always existed simply means that it didn't magically appear out of nothing, no further explanation is needed to understand this.

Regardless of what assumptions you're making from your own assumptions. The question is...'how did it get there?', aka how did energy become abundant? You don't know. Here, I'm just choosing a point to start from ... say ...energy. There's no telling how far things go behind/before/around energy. Like, what mechanisms made energy abundant? And what's behind those mechanisms? And behind those?

Do you think about this kind of thing?

Anyway, the biggest puzzle of the universe is: how did anything become abundant? And to say it was always here doesn't cut it, because of the 'how did it get there' question.

 

[Coldcall]

Regardless of what assumptions you're making from your own assumptions. The question is...'how did it get there?', aka how did energy become abundant? You don't know. Here, I'm just choosing a point to start from ... say ...energy. There's no telling how far things go behind/before/around energy. Like, what mechanisms made energy abundant? And what's behind those mechanisms? And behind those?

Do you think about this kind of thing?

Anyway, the biggest puzzle of the universe is: how did anything become abundant? And to say it was always here doesn't cut it, because of the 'how did it get there' question.

You are describing the tower of turtles problem with most cosmological theories. It seems we can always ask what came prior to such and such etc...Its why people have such a problem when they are told not to ask what happened before the big bang because science would have us believe nothing happened as there was no time etc...

Personally i find a closed loop, self-explanatory universe more appealing from a philosophical point of view. Something along the lines of that famous image of an eye that looks at it's own tail. Of course it still begs the question of what started the loop.

 

[Kenny_L]

Of course it still begs the question of what started the loop.

Exactly! That's one good way of looking at the puzzle about the universe.

 

[Coldcall]

Exactly! That's one good way of looking at the puzzle about the universe.

Okay but if we pretend that there is a fundamental puzzle of origin which can never be solved, does not the looping self-explanatory universe close the door better than the tower of turtles type theories?

If one considers Wheelers PAP, i believe it represents a brilliant way to explain us (biology), the universe and it also kind of makes it impossible for us to know anything other than the looping universe of which we are part of.

If that makes any sense

 

[out of whack]

Regardless of what assumptions you're making from your own assumptions. The question is...'how did it get there?', aka how did energy become abundant? You don't know. Here, I'm just choosing a point to start from ... say ...energy. There's no telling how far things go behind/before/around energy. Like, what mechanisms made energy abundant? And what's behind those mechanisms? And behind those?

Do you think about this kind of thing?

Anyway, the biggest puzzle of the universe is: how did anything become abundant? And to say it was always here doesn't cut it, because of the 'how did it get there' question.

You are missing the point. I made no assumption. I replied to your own question where you ask how something that has always been there got there. This question makes no sense. If something has always been there then it never "got there" and the question of how it did that doesn't apply. Given a premise that something never happened, asking "how" it happened is sloppy reasoning.

But back to the OP.

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?

Big Bang or not, there are only two possibilities. Either all of reality is completely deterministic or it isn't. If it is then yes, all our thoughts, emotions and decisions are determined by prior conditions and nothing can be done about it. If not then all our thoughts, emotions and decisions are spontaneous to some degree and nothing can be done about it.

 

[Coldcall]

"Big Bang or not, there are only two possibilities. Either all of reality is completely deterministic or it isn't."

Yes its easy to get into the "partly deterministic and partly non" paradox; when really its just one or the other because if there is any scope for non determinism then the whole model is non deterministic.

If we accept what we are told about the state of the universe at the bb then it only consisted of one singular type of substance which went on to expand, cool and become clumpy through inflation. Other deterministic systems then were born from that initial state all with varying and different initial conditions of their own. So considering what we know about the "sensitvity of initial conditions" re chaos in deterministic systems - i don't see how the universe could be Deterministic.

Also i find something really depressing and disturbing about the idea of a Determinsitic universe. That would be like we were programmed from start to finnish with zero non-linear ability. One predicted event after another - how horrible.

 

[Kenny_L]

You are missing the point. I made no assumption. I replied to your own question where you ask how something that has always been there got there. This question makes no sense. If something has always been there then it never "got there" and the question of how it did that doesn't apply. Given a premise that something never happened, asking "how" it happened is sloppy reasoning.

I'm missing no point at all. I just understand that if something is there, then it leads to something else (that made it, or is related to it). Basically, the whole thing is about 'resources'. The 'things' that are here/there is a resource. And, how did the collection of these things...the resource become abundant. That is the question. And by saying that it was always abundant is not good enough, because what we want to know is how it became abundant and available. If you don't know, then just leave it at that.

 

[out of whack]

I'm missing no point at all. [...] saying that it was always abundant is not good enough, because what we want to know is how it became abundant

This shows once again what you are indeed missing: if it was always abundant then it never became abundant. You don't seem to understand this contradiction in your quest. Until you do, you will continue to ask the same meaningless question and keep yourself in the dark, scratching your head.

 

[Kenny_L]

This shows once again what you are indeed missing: if it was always abundant then it never became abundant. You don't seem to understand this contradiction in your quest. Until you do, you will continue to ask the same meaningless question and keep yourself in the dark, scratching your head.

I already told you. I'm missing nothing. And don't make assumptions about 'quests' etc. Mine is an 'interest', and is not my quest or 'struggle' to find out something. You seem to be assuming that I'm in a bit of a tangle trying to grasp something.

Basically, I'm telling you that from observations, we know that 'physical' things are typically formed from something else, except maybe for energy - where there is a 'theory' that energy cannot be created or destroyed (but this is just a theory, and we're not absolutely sure if this holds for all conditions). But this also leads to the question of ... how ? How did energy become abundant/online/available? And this is not a meaningless question. I don't agree with the tactic of calling things that you can't grasp as being meaningless.

 

[out of whack]

And this is not a meaningless question. I don't agree with the tactic of calling things that you can't grasp as being meaningless.

It's not merely that you cannot grasp the question, the question itself is self-contradictory. Since it contradicts itself, it makes no sense. What makes no sense has no meaning. You insist on ignoring this. If you could see it then you would be further ahead in your 'interest'.

 

[Kenny_L]

It's not merely that you cannot grasp the question, the question itself is self-contradictory. Since it contradicts itself, it makes no sense. What makes no sense has no meaning. You insist on ignoring this. If you could see it then you would be further ahead in your 'interest'.

It is self contradictory to you, because you don't understand the situation even when it has been clearly explained to you. I already said that from our observations, things are very typically linked to other things. So far, we don't know of too many detectable things that aren't linked to other things.

I didn't yet say that...right now, we don't know if energy is linked to other things or not...but according to our knowledge and observations, it 'should' be linked to other things that we don't yet know about. And, although we have a 'theory' that 'energy' can't be created or destroyed, we don't know if this applies for all situations. And, because energy is something 'physical', my intuition tells me that energy is linked to something else, so I'm gathering that the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed is not true for all conditions. Which leads me to the question of - how did energy become abundant?

And, also, because of my own intuition (and our own observations) that physical things are always linked to other things, it leads to the question of - how did anything become abundant? This is the most interesting question.

See, your own tactic is to evade the question of something like energy. You know it is there, but when somebody asks you how energy is actually available or came online for everybody to use, then you simply choose to stray from the question or just call it a meaningless question, when in fact it is not.

 

[robertm]

It is self contradictory to you, because you don't understand the situation even when it has been clearly explained to you. I already said that from our observations, things are very typically linked to other things. So far, we don't know of too many detectable things that aren't linked to other things.

Kenny, you stated that it is up to proponents who claim energy always existed, to explain how it began that existence.

Can you not see how that statement is inherently contradictory? You can not ask someone to explain how something in an infinite state began. That is the whole point of an infinity. It is indeed mind-boggling, but the possibility and the concept can not just be ignored.

I didn't yet say that...right now, we don't know if energy is linked to other things or not...but according to our knowledge and observations, it 'should' be linked to other things that we don't yet know about. And, although we have a 'theory' that 'energy' can't be created or destroyed, we don't know if this applies for all situations. And, because energy is something 'physical', my intuition tells me that energy is linked to something else, so I'm gathering that the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed is not true for all conditions. Which leads me to the question of - how did energy become abundant?

And, also, because of my own intuition (and our own observations) that physical things are always linked to other things, it leads to the question of - how did anything become abundant? This is the most interesting question.

Now what you can indeed ask, of any theory proponent, is to describe the behaviour of a particular phenomenon i.e.. energy matter etc. Prediction of observable phenomenon is at the core of any scientific endeavour.

However, I would caution you on using deductive reasoning and a limited scope of current scientific knowledge and research to form a simplified opinion of such a complex subject. Just look where that got Aristotle.

Read, study, learn, poses questions and opinions, have a sceptical open mind and put every claim through harsh and sound objective reasoning; but do not take such a stout position in till you can back it up with solid evidence.

See, your own tactic is to evade the question of something like energy. You know it is there, but when somebody asks you how energy is actually available or came online for everybody to use, then you simply choose to stray from the question or just call it a meaningless question, when in fact it is not.

He is not evading a question. You stated that if the claim is: that energy is infinite in time, that it is fully conserved; then one must subsequently answer for an origin. That is inherently flawed challenge and can not be answered.

Now is that your question, 'an origin', or is your question one of the behavioural mechanics of the phenomenon?

You must see the distinction in the two...

 

[Kenny_L]

Kenny, you stated that it is up to proponents who claim energy always existed, to explain how it began that existence.

I did indeed. And it is up to them to provide an explanation for how energy had 'always existed'.

Can you not see how that statement is inherently contradictory? You can not ask someone to explain how something in an infinite state began. That is the whole point of an infinity. It is indeed mind-boggling, but the possibility and the concept can not just be ignored.

It's as simple as ... they claim it. Then it's up to them to explain it. Otherwise they're no more knowledgeable than the religious debaters that claim that something of their own had always existed, and have no explanation for it.

Now what you can indeed ask, of any theory proponent, is to describe the behaviour of a particular phenomenon i.e.. energy matter etc. Prediction of observable phenomenon is at the core of any scientific endeavour.

I'm asking them to provide their explanation for how they think 'energy' and other things ARE/IS abundant. Basically, if they reckon that energy didn't just magically come online, then they're saying that it just MAGICALLY was there all the time...then in that case, they should explain how they reckon energy could possesses this kind of 'special' state - without intervention from anything else. I already know that you (and them) cannot explain it, because if you could, you would have already done so by now. So basically, everybody is clueless about how energy IS/became abundant. Do you actually understand what I'm saying here Robert?

However, I would caution you on using deductive reasoning and a limited scope of current scientific knowledge and research to form a simplified opinion of such a complex subject. Just look where that got Aristotle.

I'm fine with using deductive reasoning, provided that it is 'reasonable' reasoning. And, 'Complex' is a relative term. We don't know how 'simple' or 'complex' the universe is. Although, the question of how energy became abundant has been elusive.

Read, study, learn, poses questions and opinions, have a sceptical open mind and put every claim through harsh and sound objective reasoning; but do not take such a stout position in till you can back it up with solid evidence.

I made no claims, as you already know. I'm asking the question of "How do you think energy possesses the state of having always existed?"

He is not evading a question. You stated that if the claim is: that energy is infinite in time, that it is fully conserved; then one must subsequently answer for an origin. That is inherently flawed challenge and can not be answered.

Exactly, and now you're beginning to see the puzzle...the discrepancies. That is, you understand what a resource is, and that we generally understand that a resource always comes from somewhere. Energy can be considered a resource. And even though you might 'reckon' that it has always been around, this does not mean that one cannot ask how this resource possesses such a state (of always having been around).

Now is that your question, 'an origin', or is your question one of the behavioural mechanics of the phenomenon?

It is both Robert. Both.

 

[out of whack]

It is self contradictory to you, because you don't understand the situation even when it has been clearly explained to you.

You provide no explanation, let alone a clear one. You ask vague questions that you reword once in a while, this time to include 'abundance'.

See, your own tactic is to evade the question of something like energy

My 'tactic', such as it is, is to clarify your ill-defined questions before trying to answer them. Your current question of "how energy became abundant" is a diversion from "how did anything come to exist". Energy is something. It must exist before you can call it abundant (or rare, or whatever other qualifier you like to use for something that exists). As a tactic of your own, you toy with wording in order to disguise the fundamental question: what is the origin of existence? There can be no energy without existence. And it cannot become abundant if it doesn't have an origin. And the reason why existence cannot have an origin was already provided to you more than once in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171193&page=5".

Speaking of which, we are far off topic and derailing this thread. Maybe a moderator could split it.

 

[Kenny_L]

As a tactic of your own, you toy with wording in order to disguise the fundamental question: what is the origin of existence? There can be no energy without existence. And it cannot become abundant if it doesn't have an origin. And the reason why existence cannot have an origin was already provided to you more than once in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171193&page=5".

Far from it. I use 'abundant' in order to make it clearer for you...basically putting in layman's terms so that you might have a chance of understanding the real deal. And your statement of 'there can be no energy without existence'...you don't really know that for sure. For many people out there (including myself), it seems that things just appeared. I'm not even going to bother putting a reference on it...such as out of 'nowhere'. Basically, things just 'appeared'...or popped out if you like. If you reckon things always 'existed', then that's fine as long as you explain how the resources 'possess' this condition, because I sure as hell can't explain how things could have just appeared, and I also can't explain how things always existed. As far as we know... it is 'odd' that something can just appear out of 'nothing'...and it is also 'odd' that something could 'have always existed' (because we expect resources to come from somewhere). So that is the very interesting thing about the universe. We don't know what's going on (and that includes you).

Also, I didn't disguise anything. I'm just organising it in a form (and refining it) so that you 'might' have a chance of understanding the real deal, as I mentioned in this post.

 

[out of whack]

I use 'abundant' in order to make it clearer for you

Abundant is subjective and relative. It's no clearer than just saying that it exists. Stay with 'exist'.

And your statement of 'there can be no energy without existence'...you don't really know that for sure.

Yes I do and so do you. Energy cannot exist without existence. Unless you want to contradict yourself.

For many people out there (including myself), it seems that things just appeared. I'm not even going to bother putting a reference on it...such as out of 'nowhere'. Basically, things just 'appeared'...or popped out if you like.

This contradicts your own 'intuition' that everything must come from something, which you keep insisting upon. You thrive on contradictions.

If you reckon things always 'existed', then that's fine as long as you explain how the resources 'possess' this condition

...and by 'resources' you mean all that exists, right?

So once again, the answer has already been given to you in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171193&page=5". You should read it again.

Also, I didn't disguise anything. I'm just organising it in a form (and refining it) so that you 'might' have a chance of understanding the real deal, as I mentioned in this post.

Then let me repeat: use better-defined words and quit changing terminology. "Does existence have an origin?" This question is clear to all.

 

[Moridin]

The conservation of energy anyone?

 

[Kenny_L]

This contradicts your own 'intuition' that everything must come from something, which you keep insisting upon.

It sure does contradict my own intuition. And that's the interesting thing about this puzzle. You (and all of us) don't have a clue about how energy (a resource) and its possible constituents is/became abundant. I do not believe that energy has always been abundant. And I'm interested in finding out how such a 'resource' is/came online. 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. I know that you have no idea about it, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[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.