Thread: Bunch of speculation

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

From a scientific standpoint if evolution shaped life, couldn't an idea similar to evolution(I don't know the word) have shaped our universe? Like our world/stars being spherical, stars creating elements, ect. Could we then say the universe's laws in itself caused evolution? We are products of the universe' laws?

To put it bluntly, the universe isn't made of self-replicating molecules. I don't know much about the early universe, but I'm sure it took time for planets to... mature, so to speak, but not evolve. You can't have evolution without reproduction, and planets don't

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

Without a doubt the creation and prediction of all of this happening in our world, this web page, the universe, all predicted from the point of creation would require a very powerful computer... Or a very powerful being.

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about predicting. Why does anything have to be predicted? It kind of seems like you're viewing things from the perspective of they were always going to happen. The fact that any of us are born isn't because there was a divine plan, but because we were the fastest sperm. I don't really know why the universe happened, I hesitate to say that it happened by chance (so I don't please any Christians), but I don't believe there was a plan behind it. Could you elaborate more on the whole predicting thing?

If you don't mind I refer to both of your quotes at the same time:

Originally Posted by CatBus

To put it bluntly, the universe isn't made of self-replicating molecules. I don't know much about the early universe, but I'm sure it took time for planets to... mature, so to speak, but not evolve. You can't have evolution without reproduction, and planets don't

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about predicting. Why does anything have to be predicted? It kind of seems like you're viewing things from the perspective of they were always going to happen. The fact that any of us are born isn't because there was a divine plan, but because we were the fastest sperm. I don't really know why the universe happened, I hesitate to say that it happened by chance (so I don't please any Christians), but I don't believe there was a plan behind it. Could you elaborate more on the whole predicting thing?

I wasn't really refering to the universe as "replicating". I'm just saying because of the universe's laws it was natural for gravity to clump matter together, for stars to ignite and fuse heavier elements, ect. I'm taking a stance on the universe arising the way it is today because it would have to be that way given its laws.

Mistakes in Genetic coding that allow evolution aren't mere mistakes as if a scientist intervened in DNA replication, or if a cashier overcharge someone. I'm saying the flow of the aging universe from the moment of creation to what it is now has decided how every particle would interact, hence the future. I would say life has arose based off of this, thus we are the way we are because of the particles formation/position/velocity from creation. Evolution of life (a product of the universe's laws) in the strictest material sense is just a bunch of particles interacting. Its much more complicated, but the same principle.

If you understood that, then the sperm that penetrates to egg first isn't chance at all. It has been decided in the begining from every interacting particle.

As I brought up in my first post I'm not sure how the idea of free will interacts with this concept. Its concept would seem like defying the universe's predetermined path. Try placing something somewhere else. What have you done now? You changed the future! Or did you?

My explantion of free will: I like to think in my mindset we do have free will to do anything we please, however whatever we will do, it will or better yet has always been part of the future. Remember when you moved something? You were meant to read this post (hopefully) and make that decision. If you did move something (hopefully), you were meant to from the interacting particles in the universe's beginning.

This theory neither denies nor supports God or a divine plan. However it does mean that there is something like a predermined future and there is no such thing as chance. We have to ability to shape the future, but really the future was already shaped our way, because we would interact with it as mere particles would. Get it?

I certainly hope you can understand me. It's sort of hard writing this stuff down. I tried to be repetitive in my writing to make it easier to understand. If you have any questions/comments/critisms feel free to add.

I wrote out a long ass explanation responding to your last post until I realized that I'm in the same boat with you to a certain extent. The only reason I'm here is because of the way that certain particles moved and interacted. However, I don't think that every particle's interaction in the entire universe is why I'm me (however I may have misinterpreted you). As for the future though, I don't think the future is determined. I don't think that if I flipped a coin now and it landed on tails that it was going to land on tails the whole time.


You did a great job of elaborating by the way, I understand your point (I hope, hehe) a lot better than I did before.

From a scientific standpoint if evolution shaped life, couldn't an idea similar to evolution(I don't know the word) have shaped our universe? Like our world/stars being spherical, stars creating elements, ect. Could we then say the universe's laws in itself caused evolution? We are products of the universe' laws?

Everything in the universe is the product of the universe's laws, yes. What is your point?

It's actually quite hard to distinguish what is classed as a chemical reaction and what is classed as life, especially in primitive life forms (this is because there is actually no physical distinction between the two; life is a battle of chemical reactions), so in a sense you can extend the theory of evolution.

Then if God created the universe and knew exactly where he made everything and the velocity he made it, couldn't he forsee everything (maybe like a powerful super computer) that the universe would make us?

I'm having trouble understand how people can fit into this prediction system. Unlike the universe we can do any thing we like at a given time.

For example I can pick up this baseball on my desk and knock out a car window, triggering a fight with a neighbor, possibly murder. He could have had a decendent that could have changed the world somehow. How can God account for these things(free will)?

Unless of course we really don't have free will, and Free will is only a concept in our eyes. Unless every question in my head is the product of my biological makeup, the food I eaten, ect. Without a doubt the creation and prediction of all of this happening in our world, this web page, the universe, all predicted from the point of creation would require a very powerful computer... Or a very powerful being.

Actually you can't predict the exact future of the universe, even if you know everything about it. This is a result of quantum theory; the universe is inherently random. If you want you could, I suppose, look to this as a source of 'free will'.

On the scale of our brains though, quantum theory has little importance. So yes, every decision we make, we were always going to make.

I don't think it is correct to say that this means we have no 'free will' or 'choice' though. That would be to deny our most innate experience. The view I take is I suppose a version of soft determinism: yes, we were always going make a choice. But we still make the choice. It was us, our mental processes, that led to that choice being made. So by any standards we do indeed choose. This I suppose is equal to saying that free will exists.

Free will is an illusion. There is nothing predicting, nothing matters on the grand scheme, really. You assume way too much here. I.e. that there is a god, and he gives a shit.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is a result of quantum theory; the universe is inherently random.

Woah, woah, back it up a bit there with the Copenhagen interpretation. Determinism is not incompatible with QM in and of itself.

Not necessarily. The universe created its laws and physics and such as it developed, meaning things like equal and opposite reactions and such were mere inventions of the universe, and not a basis for reality as a whole.

Woah, woah, back it up a bit there with the Copenhagen interpretation. Determinism is not incompatible with QM in and of itself.

That's really a bit of a minority view nowadays... I'm not a quantum physicist but the large majority of those who are say that the universe is inherently radom.

Originally Posted by archdreamer

Determinism is not incompatible with QM in and of itself.

Explain how a probabilistic process can be deterministic.

Originally Posted by Xei

That's really a bit of a minority view nowadays... I'm not a quantum physicist but the large majority of those who are say that the universe is inherently radom.

This doesn't make it correct any more than the same statement would make theism correct. There's (currently) no actual scientific basis upon which any particular interpretation would be preferred. It's basically a matter of taste, but the Copenhagen interpretation is definitely the most popular amongst those who don't simply subscribe to the 'shut up and calculate' interpretation. EDIT: Also, source on your numbers?

Explain how a probabilistic process can be deterministic.

I am unable to do so. However, QM can be formulated in ways that avoid probabilistic proecesses entirely, such as in some non-local hidden variable theories (Bohm figured one of these out).

Originally Posted by archdreamer

I am unable to do so. However, QM can be formulated in ways that avoid probabilistic proecesses entirely, such as in some non-local hidden variable theories (Bohm figured one of these out).

Don't those allow instantaneous communication over any distance and other impossibilities?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Don't those allow instantaneous communication over any distance and other impossibilities?

They don't necessarily allow this, any moreso than Copenhagen does.

Be careful of calling instantaneous communication an impossibility. We simply don't know enough to say that.

This doesn't make it correct any more than the same statement would make theism correct. There's (currently) no actual scientific basis upon which any particular interpretation would be preferred. It's basically a matter of taste, but the Copenhagen interpretation is definitely the most popular amongst those who don't simply subscribe to the 'shut up and calculate' interpretation.

So why does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle have objective existence?

Einstein tried to argue against inherent randomness with Bohr. Every time he failed.

Originally Posted by Xei

So why does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle have objective existence?

I don't know exactly what you mean. Quantum mechanics (including the Uncertainty Principle) is a set of principles used to make predictions about empirical results. Real-world results (seem to) be consistent with these predictions, so the theory has been adopted (and the HUP), and it is used to make further predictions (science!). The Uncertainty Principle doesn't 'prefer' any particular interpretation of QM, it's a part of the unnderlying mathematical theory, and, as such, the predictions of all interpretations of QM are consistent with the HUP. I'm not sure what this has to do with the 'objective existence' of the HUP, though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Einstein tried to argue against inherent randomness with Bohr. Every time he failed.

"Einstein couldn't do it, so it can't be done" isn't a very good argument. If these arguments were conclusive, then by all means reproduce the important bits, but, as it stands, this statement is irrelevant, and possibly not even true.

Originally Posted by archdreamer

They don't necessarily allow this, any moreso than Copenhagen does.

Be careful of calling instantaneous communication an impossibility. We simply don't know enough to say that.

Shouldn't instantaneous communication be impossible because everything takes time to travel, including light?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Shouldn't instantaneous communication be impossible because everything takes time to travel, including light?

If it is true that everything takes time to travel, then yes. However, we aren't sure of this (wormholes etc might be possible, but then you may have to throw out causality and some other stuff).

Even still. Something has to travel into the wormhole, and that takes time.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Even still. Something has to travel into the wormhole, and that takes time.

You can accelerate one end of the wormhole so that the two ends travel through time at different rates. Then, by continually entering the more future end you can travel back in time.

That is, if wormholes do exist and you could actually keep one open and travel through it without getting warped to death.

Decided to revive this thread. I only have a little physics understanding, so don't overwealm me. Ok?

About the uncertainty principle... The only thing that stops us from determining both a particles speed and velocity is that we use waves to interact with it right? We analyze it, interfere with it, and defeat our original purpose. Our methods are flawed in predicting the future of individual particles.

Even if we could understand them individually, I doubt we could have a computer powerful enough to amass the data from every particle and predict how they interact with each other. Or even the energy to run such a thing.

I don't think God would have the trouble we would have. I'm not saying that just because he's said to be "all powerful". God created everything in the beginning. He could have amassed all the information and preset the particles. He wouldn't have even needed to analyze them with waves like we would. From a computer's view or even in our thoughts we can create the concept of a single atom. We can say how fast it goes and even where it is on a grid. Why can't he do that outside our universe?

If he wanted to predict the future from outside the universe he could use a copy of all the information that he used to create our universe. From this copy he could run concepts of the interacting particles that he created in the begining, without actually interfering with our universe.

However I think if he decided to come into our universe he would upset a deviation from his own copy. So the more he interferes with our universe the less reliable his copy becomes. Of course the changes would become more significant as time passes.

But think about it. God (the being not from our universe) would take the precaution not to interfere for the sake of perserving the future data. Now how many religions does this go against?

However I can worm my way out of this. What if God made preparations before hand and designed the universe's beginning to include something to act as a proxy for his will? He wouldn't jump into our domain and burn a bush for Mosas right? That would deviate from his copy! So instead he designs the universe's beginning to someday give Mosas hallucinations. Get where this is going?

So... someone please give me feedback! I spent good time writing this.

I don't think anyone care's about crackpot speculation...

I bet if I put a couple of numbers in there people would hound over it like flies to poo

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything in the universe is the product of the universe's laws, yes. What is your point?

It's actually quite hard to distinguish what is classed as a chemical reaction and what is classed as life, especially in primitive life forms (this is because there is actually no physical distinction between the two; life is a battle of chemical reactions), so in a sense you can extend the theory of evolution.

Actually you can't predict the exact future of the universe, even if you know everything about it. This is a result of quantum theory; the universe is inherently random. If you want you could, I suppose, look to this as a source of 'free will'.

On the scale of our brains though, quantum theory has little importance. So yes, every decision we make, we were always going to make.

I don't think it is correct to say that this means we have no 'free will' or 'choice' though. That would be to deny our most innate experience. The view I take is I suppose a version of soft determinism: yes, we were always going make a choice. But we still make the choice. It was us, our mental processes, that led to that choice being made. So by any standards we do indeed choose. This I suppose is equal to saying that free will exists.

Not to argue but.
You seem to have forgotten the beyond your control part of the equation, we can make choices but sometimes our choices won't matter because someone or something will adversely affect us. Guess thats kind of similar to that randomness in quantum theory. You could be making a decision to cross the street when a Car hits you and makes the decision for you.

(And you mean we can't know everything about this universe,at this point in time.)(And if their is a God, I'm assuming it would know..)