Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would they follow a radial path? If they started out in radial paths, they would continue, but the non-uniform nature of the laws of the universe alone were enough to make the big bang itself non-uniform. The mere fact that the particles moved in different directions and that different directions even existed shows non-uniformity in the nature of the universe. Also, whether the big bang came from a singularity is still being debated.

What sort of big bang would be preceded by something other than a singularity? The very concept of a big bang is that everything that currently constitutes our universe, including the laws, forces, bright and dark matter and the whole shebang, were once, and through several brief stages of expansion, concentrated into a uniform (if changing), particle-less pre-mass. Why insert some mathematical or extra-dimensional deus ex machina when there is an observable quality of our universe, quantum indeterminacy, that rather neatly describes the transition from uniformity to divergence?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What sort of big bang would be preceded by something other than a singularity? The very concept of a big bang is that everything that currently constitutes our universe, including the laws, forces, bright and dark matter and the whole shebang, were once, and through several brief stages of expansion, concentrated into a uniform (if changing), particle-less pre-mass. Why insert some mathematical or extra-dimensional deus ex machina when there is an observable quality of our universe, quantum indeterminacy, that rather neatly describes the transition from uniformity to divergence?

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

I don't believe there is one.

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

If there is a Gigantic Platypus born of a Maroon Orang-utan presiding on Mars, why can't he enforce randomness?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because randomness is a nonsense concept. Also, not all physicists agree that the big bang came from a singularity. There is the possibility that the universe was just really concentrated but with a finite size.

And I find determinism a nonsense concept, trying to have your cake and eat it, too. All physicists do agree that the billiard-ball mechanics behind the materialist argument for determinism don't tell the whole story. Quantum superposition is a reality; it has recently been demonstrated in a visible-scale object: http://io9.com/5497720/first-quantum...visible-object

At any rate, the math and physics at this point don't conclusively support or refute determinism, and as Xaq pointed out a while back, it's possible and even likely that the nature of our existence precludes them from doing so. I can only tell you that as evident as it is to you that the universe is in a fixed state that will yield another--one and only one--fixed state, it is equally evident to me that the forms in our present awareness are not as solid and events are not happening as rigidly or exclusively as we imagine they do. Reality experienced as forms and events is so transitory, so conditional and contingent that to talk about it being predetermined gives it too much credit, overestimating the extent to which it exists at all.

Are you saying that the universe might exist in no exact form? If that were the case, a contradiction would be inherent. Having no exact form would be the label of its exact form. That is contradictory and impossible.

Originally Posted by Koalaman

Perhaps this doesn't belong in a philosophical discussion, but if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?

What are the physics of this God? What affects him, and does he affect, what interacts with him?? etc etc

You can't just say "if there's a God, why can't he enforce randomness?". This thing were discussing is one of the most basic truths about the universe: causality. Everything in the universe happens for one or multiple causes which already exist in the universe -- this concept is called determinism.

Can a God make things happen without a physical cause? I don't know, after centuries of science, we still haven't found any God to study.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you saying that the universe might exist in no exact form? If that were the case, a contradiction would be inherent. Having no exact form would be the label of its exact form. That is contradictory and impossible.

Do you think that this is a linguistic contradiction or a legitimate one?

Your wording is interesting, because "might exist in no exact form" is exactly how I would describe the quantum mechanical position; with an emphasis on the "might" which removes all semblance of exactness. In this situation, the nature of the universe is neither exact or non-exact, but in some intrinsically "may or may not" state.

One way or the other, any similarity to exactness may simply stem from our language being ill equiped to speak about these sorts of things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you saying that the universe might exist in no exact form? If that were the case, a contradiction would be inherent. Having no exact form would be the label of its exact form. That is contradictory and impossible.

What you mean to ask is - is the universe is formless? Which is simply "yes", according to what Xaqaria and Taosaur seem to be saying. That which is formless is devoid of form.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you think that this is a linguistic contradiction or a legitimate one?

Universal Mind is relying on plain rhetoric again. I think all three of us know that.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

it is equally evident to me that the forms in our present awareness are not as solid and events are not happening as rigidly or exclusively as we imagine they do.

Then maybe they also are happening as exclusively as we imagine they do. If they are not doing that, then they could also be doing that because the not doing that wouldn't be fixed and exact. See the contradiction?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you think that this is a linguistic contradiction or a legitimate one?

Your wording is interesting, because "might exist in no exact form" is exactly how I would describe the quantum mechanical position; with an emphasis on the "might" which removes all semblance of exactness. In this situation, the nature of the universe is neither exact or non-exact, but in some intrinsically "may or may not" state.

One way or the other, any similarity to exactness may simply stem from our language being ill equiped to speak about these sorts of things.

Either the universe has form or it doesn't. That is not merely linguistic.

Originally Posted by really

What you mean to ask is - is the universe is formless? Which is simply "yes", according to what Xaqaria and Taosaur seem to be saying. That which is formless is devoid of form.

I can't read what you wrote. It is formless. Isn't it?

Originally Posted by really

Universal Mind is relying on plain rhetoric again.

Does that situation have form?

I am honored that the logic champion called Really entered this conversation about the nature of the universe. It is always entertaining. It reminds me of Pamela Anderson talking about politics.