Is there a big bang inside of us all?

[McGarr178]

Hi,

 

I just wrote a short article explaining how, in a way, there is a big bang inside of us all..

 

http://phoenix-from-the-wasteland.com/blog1.php/2009/03/30/the-big-bang-inside-of-us-all

 

What does everybody think?

 

Cheers,

 

 

McGarr

[farmboy]

Interesting essay, although I disagree with its sentiment. I don't really see how one can make the jump from quantum uncertainty to initial conditions of the universe. I am also uneasy with the application of quantum mechanical principles to a large, complex system such as the human mind.

[UC]

there is a big bang inside of us all..

 

That's what she said.

[mooeypoo]

Quoting from your essay:

The Newtonian clockwork view point of the universe assumed that time was at a right angle to the starting conditions.

I am not sure what that means. Time is not a vector, it's a scalar, how can it be in an angle to anything? Do you have any references to this assertion?

 

This lead to the view that as time proceeded the influence of the initial conditions decreased and the influence of the laws of physics increased.

The laws of physics are describing reality. They don't "increase" on the expense of something else, they exist always. If you think that at some point the behaviour of the universe was different, then, by definition, the laws of physics were different.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support such assumption. On the contrary, the laws of physics do not change as time goes by, they are quite consistent regardless of any time passing.

 

This lead to physicists looking to explain the current state of the universe solely in terms of the laws of physics whilst disregarding the initial conditions as non-consequential.

Physicists study the universe according ot physics. Anything "beyond" it is beyond the realm of reality and therefore is impossible to predict, observe and research. It is, essentially, nonexistent. Unless, of course, you care to give any evidence for such an "initial condition" that is "beyond the laws of physics" that scientists just dismiss offhand.

 

 

This bias has reached such a level that some physicists seek to make the initial conditions dependent upon the laws themselves. This is a contradiction in terms since initial conditions are by definition dependent upon nothing.

That's not bias, it's the scientific method, that is not a belief, it's a methodology to make sure the process of research, observation, analysis and conclusion are done with as little bias as possible.

 

Beyond that, you have absolutely no reference whatsoever to ANY of the claims you're making. Are we to just believe you blindly, or will you do the opposite of what you CLAIM science to do and be intellectually honest about your citations?

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

[McGarr178]

My definition of an initial condition is one that is not dependent on anything else. I see science as data compressing reality. In any model you have to have starting seed, rules of expanding it (which can be seen as starting conditions as they are also not dependent on anything) - these two combined can generate the rest of the system. There may be many different ways of generating the same system.

 

I'm trying to draw a distinction between two different ways of generating a system.

 

1.

 

inital conditions ->

laws(initial conditions) ->

laws(laws(initial conditions)) ->

etc

 

and

 

2.

initial conditions ->

laws(initial conditions) + new initial conditions ->

laws(laws(initial conditions) + new initial conditions) + new initial conditions ->

etc

 

These are two fundamentally different systems. You can see how in 1. the influence of the laws increases. In the second there is potential for balance.

 

I'm not up to date on cutting edge physics - so I ask. What category does th universe as described by modern physics come under?

[mooeypoo]

My definition of an initial condition is one that is not dependent on anything else. I see science as data compressing reality.

That's not what science is, so your definition is simply flawed.

Science has a clear definition; your attempt to redefine it so that you can "combat" the definition is worthless; science is not "data compressing reality".

 

It's just not.

 

If you want, you can invent your own definition of your own word that MEANS what you want it to mean, and then argue whatever you want about its meaning.

 

Otherwise, it's just like anyone claiming they see religion as "information twister for the unsuspecting masses" and then goes on to say how all mass is unsuspecting. That's just not what religion means, and that's not what science means.

 

 

In any model you have to have starting seed, rules of expanding it (which can be seen as starting conditions as they are also not dependent on anything) - these two combined can generate the rest of the system. There may be many different ways of generating the same system.

Again you're creating your own defnitions. You're not even backing those definitions up by evidence or supporting claims, you just redefine an already-well-defined word and assumes that's just enough to change the entire language.

 

That's not the way things work.

 

I'm trying to draw a distinction between two different ways of generating a system.

 

1.

 

inital conditions ->

laws(initial conditions) ->

laws(laws(initial conditions)) ->

etc

Initial conditions are defined according to the laws of physics. They are not existing on their own, otherwise you have no way of knowing what they are.

 

For example; a case where a car accelerates from rest at 2m/s^2 until it reaches 10 kph, and then goes down the road at this speed is your "system".

Your initial conditions are defined by how things looked at t=0

That is, a car with velocity 0, acceleration 2m/s^2.

 

The initial conditions come from your rules. The initial conditions along with the rules tell you what the status of your system is going to be like in t=whatever.

 

These are NOT two distinct definitions, and they are not two distinct systems. Initial conditions RELY ON the laws.

 

 

I'm not up to date on cutting edge physics - so I ask. What category does th universe as described by modern physics come under?

This isn't cutting edge physics at all, it's logical fallacies.

 

First, you recreate a definition to make it suit your claim. Science is NOT how you define it.

Second, you redefine initial conditions to fit your own theory. Initial conditions are NOT defined the way you define them.

 

Then, you conclude that your own theory is valid, when, in fact, all its basic premises are just flawed.

 

On top of everything else your claims about Spinoza/Newton/Einstein are not supported by valid evidence. Please show us where those famous scientists declared what you claim they declare, it's only fair you provide resources to your claims and makes sure you avoid plagiarism, as well.

 

~moo

[McGarr178]

By initial condition I mean first cause. A first cause is not dependent on anything. I was using the words initial conditions because I subscribe to the metaphor of the universe as a computer program.

 

I am not trying to combat the definition of science. I challenge you to provide me with one established scientific theory that does not data compress reality. A theory can not be validated unless it makes a prediction. A prediction is a form of data compression. With a predictive theory you can determine a property of the world from another. You have decreased the amount of information required to describe the world.

 

Regardless of that. What don't you understand or disagree with? If there is any acausality inherent in the laws of physics then new information is constantly entering the world. That is the point I am driving at.

 

Do you disagree that

 

acausality = new information?

 

I apologise if my choice of words offends you. I realise now that 'initial conditions' is poor choice in term. Thank you for that.

 

Even by your definition I do not agree that initial conditions are determined by the law of physics. How are the initial conditions of an experiment determined by the laws of physics?

 

Am I wrong in thinking that the way somebody presents an argument is to firstly define their terms and then present their conclusions based upon them? I realise that defining terms in unnatural ways makes things difficult but does not necessarily make the argument illogical.

 

Do I really need evidence of enlightenment viewpoint of a clockwork universe??

 

I didn't even mention Einstein.

 

Hawkins did say that every quantum collapse defines an initial condition of the universe. I found the link. Maybe you should write to the journalist and tell them off for their loose use of the words 'initial condition'.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3345641/Stephen-Hawkings-explosive-new-theory.html

 

Now- can you answer my questions?

[Klaynos]

Journalists never get things right when writing about science... it makes me wonder how right they are the rest of the time...

[mooeypoo]

By initial condition I mean first cause. A first cause is not dependent on anything. I was using the words initial conditions because I subscribe to the metaphor of the universe as a computer program.

The first condition is absolutely dependent on the laws, as *EVERYTHING IS*. The laws didn't just "pop" into existence, and they didn't come after something -- They were there during those initial conditions.

 

What you're saying makes no sense, and what you're insisting on doing is just say it without explaining how you reach that initial conclusion. This conclusion is unscientific, illogical, and comes against any of the definitions of science, laws of physics, and initial conditions.

 

You can't just make stuff up and expect people to agree with you.

 

 

I am not trying to combat the definition of science. I challenge you to provide me with one established scientific theory that does not data compress reality.

You are the one with the "new" theory, and the burden of proof is on you. For your theory to be valid, it needs, first and foremost, to be valid on its own regardless of others. THEN, it needs to be better than other theories in order to replace them.

 

 

A theory can not be validated unless it makes a prediction.

I didn't say validated, I said valid. As in logical. It's not, at the moment, as your logic does not follow.

 

A prediction is a form of data compression. With a predictive theory you can determine a property of the world from another. You have decreased the amount of information required to describe the world.

We call this type of paragraph a wordsalad, because it's reiterating your own definition without making any sort of logical sense.

 

A Prediction is not compressing any data.

To claim that a predictions brings stuff from one world to another you need to establish that there are more worlds than this. And then you need to establish the method by which such prediction "pops into" the current world.

 

I believe you try to refer to "prophecy" as "prediction", if I have read your paragraph (and your message between-the-lines). Those two are absolutely not the same, they don't come from the same definition, or the same methodology, or the same output.

 

Regardless of that. What don't you understand or disagree with? If there is any acausality inherent in the laws of physics then new information is constantly entering the world. That is the point I am driving at.

I explained exactly what's wrong with your premises in my first post. I would expect a bit of a higher thresh-hold of intellectual honesty if we are to continue debating this.

 

Do you disagree that

 

acausality = new information?

What is acausailty? What do you mean by new information? How do you expect anyone to agree or disagree with your claims if you do not define them properly?

 

Have you ever read a proper scientific (or general popsci, even, a college essay for that matter) paper? Definitions are explained, sources are given to support them and the claims.

 

That's meant to make sure everyone's "on the same page".

 

I apologise if my choice of words offends you. I realise now that 'initial conditions' is poor choice in term. Thank you for that.

It doesn't offend me at all, it's just either wrong choice or simply wrong.

I am really not offended by any word you put in your paper, but the choice you make in your defniition will be the difference between your theory being bunk and your theory having the chance of being valid.

 

There are dictionaries for a reason, and if you disagree with a definition, the least you could do for your readers is to explain why you think it's wrong and support it.

 

Even by your definition I do not agree that initial conditions are determined by the law of physics. How are the initial conditions of an experiment determined by the laws of physics?

Regardless, the laws of physics exist along with whatever initial conditions. If you think otherwise, you will have to answer the question of "where did these initial conditions come from", as well as "where did the laws come from" (seeing as your claim suggests they STARTED AFTER your initial condition..).

 

Can you explain either of those ?

 

 

Am I wrong in thinking that the way somebody presents an argument is to firstly define their terms and then present their conclusions based upon them? I realise that defining terms in unnatural ways makes things difficult but does not necessarily make the argument illogical.

It doesn't make things difficult, it makes your theory flawed and bunk.

 

As I pointed out with my example about redefining religion, for example, definitions that are just made out of thin air are worthless. If those definitions are the basic premises for a theory, that makes the theory itself worthless.

 

 

Do I really need evidence of enlightenment viewpoint of a clockwork universe??

Yes.

 

I didn't even mention Einstein.

My bad. Still, you mentioned the rest of them and my point about references still stands.

 

Nitpicking through my points and twisting them to fit your view of things

(for example, ignoring my point about references so you can just claim i was wrong about Einstein specifically)

is unfair, inconsistent, and does absolutely no justice to your claims. Please read the rules of conduct, my friend, and start taking responsibility on the claims *YOU* are posting in our site.

 

We didn't come to you, you came to us. You hold the burden of proof on your own claims, not the other way around.

 

Hawkins did say that every quantum collapse defines an initial condition of the universe. I found the link. Maybe you should write to the journalist and tell them off for their loose use of the words 'initial condition'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3345641/Stephen-Hawkings-explosive-new-theory.html

Telegraph is not a scientific publication. It's hardly a pop-sci publication. It's DEFINITELY not a good way to show you understand what Quantum collapse is.

 

Now- can you answer my questions?

Not until you actually answer mine and your theory makes a bit more sense.

[McGarr178]

Thank you for enforcing intellectual rigour. I am out of practice.

 

Regarding the enlightenment theory of the clockwork universe

 

1. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; ibid, p. 65.

2. Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The emergence of Rational Dissent." Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.

3. Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. p201

 

Regarding the quantum collapse as being a source of NEW information in the universe.

[mooeypoo]

Thank you for enforcing intellectual rigour. I am out of practice.

 

Regarding the enlightenment theory of the clockwork universe

 

1. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; ibid, p. 65.

2. Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The emergence of Rational Dissent." Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19.

3. Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. p201

 

Regarding the quantum collapse as being a source of NEW information in the universe.

Right, thank you.

 

And yet, the "Clockwordk Universe" is the least of your theory's "troubles".

[McGarr178]

So, am I wrong in thinking that there is indererinancy in physics?

 

Given enough information of the state of the universe at one point in time is it theoretically possible to predict the future?

 

There are no acausal events?

 

If something is acausal doesn't that mean it has no cause - that it is a first cause?

 

Which ever interpretation you give of quantum physics we can not predict for certain when an atom will decay or where an electron will strike the screen in a double slit experiment.

 

When these events happen new information is obtained about the world that was not contained in the information we had about the world before.

[mooeypoo]

What does ANY OF THIS have to do with the theory you posted in the original post, or my questions that followed??

 

Stop diverting attention away from the apparent fact you have no answers.

[Royston]

I am not trying to combat the definition of science. I challenge you to provide me with one established scientific theory that does not data compress reality. A theory can not be validated unless it makes a prediction. A prediction is a form of data compression. With a predictive theory you can determine a property of the world from another. You have decreased the amount of information required to describe the world.

 

Theories work on approximations, not data compression, and it just so happens that the approximations are becoming more and more accurate through refined mathematical models, and experiment.

 

Air resistance is a good example of that in practice, there are some basic linear and quadratic models, but these don't work in certain conditions, so the model is refined...at very high velocities you get chaotic behaviour, so it's all to do with what model you use and in what situation. Scientific theories are literally waiting for new data, it's just some are so good, they stand strong up to the most extreme conditions e.g it takes the interior of a black hole before GR breaks down.

 

Science is a data whore, and if some new measurements beg that a theory be stuck in the firing line, then so be it...it's a slow process before it gets accepted, but that's to be expected i.e rigor is key to improvements within science.

[swansont]

Even by your definition I do not agree that initial conditions are determined by the law of physics. How are the initial conditions of an experiment determined by the laws of physics?

 

How can they not be determined by the laws of physics? Wouldn't they have to violate the laws of physics in order to not be determined by the laws?

 

——

 

If the initial conditions of the universe are random and not determined by the laws of physics, how would you test this? If they are, how do you test this? If the laws were created at the time of the big bang, or were in existence prior to it, how do you test this?

[McGarr178]

Theories work on approximations, not data compression, and it just so happens that the approximations are becoming more and more accurate through refined mathematical models, and experiment.

 

Air resistance is a good example of that in practice, there are some basic linear and quadratic models, but these don't work in certain conditions, so the model is refined...at very high velocities you get chaotic behaviour, so it's all to do with what model you use and in what situation. Scientific theories are literally waiting for new data, it's just some are so good, they stand strong up to the most extreme conditions e.g it takes the interior of a black hole before GR breaks down.

 

Science is a data whore, and if some new measurements beg that a theory be stuck in the firing line, then so be it...it's a slow process before it gets accepted, but that's to be expected i.e rigor is key to improvements within science.

Let's take the example from one of the above replies.

 

For example; a case where a car accelerates from rest at 2m/s^2 until it reaches 10 kph, and then goes down the road at this speed is your "system".

Your initial conditions are defined by how things looked at t=0

That is, a car with velocity 0, acceleration 2m/s^2.

 

There are many ways to describe the motion of the car over time. Some of the descriptions are larger than others. You could could have a look up table that contains a position, velocity, acceleration for the car for any given time. In order to describe every time it would have to be infinitely large.

 

However, if you know the laws of physics and the relevant initial conditions then you can work out the cars position, velocity and acceleration at any time. The amount of data needed has been reduced.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How can they not be determined by the laws of physics? Wouldn't they have to violate the laws of physics in order to not be determined by the laws?

 

——

 

If the initial conditions of the universe are random and not determined by the laws of physics, how would you test this? If they are, how do you test this? If the laws were created at the time of the big bang, or were in existence prior to it, how do you test this?

 

 

The initial conditions would certainly not violate the laws of physics and they would be described in terms of them. Consider a universe consisting of billiard balls on a pool table. Let's say that it is an idealised newtonian system. The starting conditions of this universe would be expressed in terms of the laws i.e position, velocity, acceleration etc however, if the only information you knew about the system was the laws there would be no way of knowing what the starting conditions were.

 

Lets say I create a simulation of a universe. My choice of starting conditions would not be determined by the laws that I choose.

 

Even if you knew all the information for a particular time and the laws of the system you would still not be able to determine the initial positions of the balls. You could extrapolate backwards but you would still not know when the universe started. You would end up extrapolating backwards until you hit a logical inconsistency i.e a state that could be preceded by no other.

 

A scientific theory states only how variables will change over time in relation to each other but does not state how those variables began with in the first place.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What does ANY OF THIS have to do with the theory you posted in the original post, or my questions that followed??

 

Stop diverting attention away from the apparent fact you have no answers.

 

If you can't see that acausality and indeterminacy is the bedrock of my entire theory then I am not sure we can have any sort of meaningful discussion.

 

I was simply trying to guide you through my idea step by step so I could establish at what point you disagree with me.

 

I have not answered some of your questions because I feel you misunderstood my position which is why I have been trying to clarify. I admit that the fault is mine in my lack of clarity.

 

I'm not here trying to convice others of my theory. I came here to learn.

[swansont]

The initial conditions would certainly not violate the laws of physics and they would be described in terms of them. Consider a universe consisting of billiard balls on a pool table. Let's say that it is an idealised newtonian system. The starting conditions of this universe would be expressed in terms of the laws i.e position, velocity, acceleration etc however, if the only information you knew about the system was the laws there would be no way of knowing what the starting conditions were.

 

Lets say I create a simulation of a universe. My choice of starting conditions would not be determined by the laws that I choose.

 

Even if you knew all the information for a particular time and the laws of the system you would still not be able to determine the initial positions of the balls. You could extrapolate backwards but you would still not know when the universe started. You would end up extrapolating backwards until you hit a logical inconsistency i.e a state that could be preceded by no other.

 

A scientific theory states only how variables will change over time in relation to each other but does not state how those variables began with in the first place.

 

 

One problem here is that "determined" has more than one definition. The state of a system is determined by the laws of physics, even if we don't know what that state is.

 

So when you ask "How are the initial conditions of an experiment determined by the laws of physics?" which definition are you using? "Known" or "conforming to"?

 

I believe Moo's point is that if the laws were in place already, then the initial conditions would have to conform to them. You seem to be claiming that no laws were in place. I am asking how you would be able to test either scenario.

[McGarr178]

in essence what I am saying is that the laws of physics do not logicaly imply a specific set of starting conditions.. they can not narrow it down to a set of one.. every time a quantum collapse occurs it reduces that set but not completely because you still don't know what the next one will do,, every time an acausal event occurs a new starting condition is revealed

[mooeypoo]

in essence what I am saying is that the laws of physics do not logicaly imply a specific set of starting conditions..

And what we're saying is that they can't exist otherwise. Unless you can prove otherwise, the definition of initial conditions and everything we know (from observation, experimentation and our own definition) of initial condition is that it relies on the laws of physics.

 

Everything relies on the laws of physics. Time, too. "Before" makes no sense.

 

they can not narrow it down to a set of one.. every time a quantum collapse occurs it reduces that set but not completely because you still don't know what the next one will do,, every time an acausal event occurs a new starting condition is revealed

Quantum collapse is also part of the laws of physics, and whatever follows it is ALSO part of the laws of physics. Whatever you "narrow it down to", that follows the laws of physics as well.

 

~moo

[Royston]

Let's take the example from one of the above replies.

 

For example; a case where a car accelerates from rest at 2m/s^2 until it reaches 10 kph, and then goes down the road at this speed is your "system".

Your initial conditions are defined by how things looked at t=0

That is, a car with velocity 0, acceleration 2m/s^2.

 

There are many ways to describe the motion of the car over time. Some of the descriptions are larger than others. You could could have a look up table that contains a position, velocity, acceleration for the car for any given time. In order to describe every time it would have to be infinitely large.

 

You're basically arguing that continuity is flawed, i.e if you did feel inclined to know the speed of the car at 1.12234557 s then yes, you could calculate it. Kinematics is not really the study of that, but I think I understand your argument.

 

Infinite solutions crop up in maths all the time, it's only fairly recently (solely physics) where quantities such as time could be comprised of discrete units. That's out of my league, but I'm sure others on here know a thing or two about it, as a starting point...discrete time

[Martin]

Hi,

 

I just wrote a short article explaining how, in a way, there is a big bang inside of us all..

 

http://phoenix-from-the-wasteland.com/blog1.php/2009/03/30/the-big-bang-inside-of-us-all

 

What does everybody think?

 

Cheers,

 

 

McGarr

 

Hello McGarr,

I just saw your post #1 here and looked at your blog first two essays* and i will tell you what I think, since you ask.

 

I think literature has a serious/vital purpose of refreshing the spirit and preventing the soul from drying out and getting stiff-like.

We actually need it.

We pursue science for the honor of the human mind and for evolutionary reasons, but probably we don't need it the way we need inspired literature.

 

I think your two blog essays are literature of a quite alive kicking sort and I'm pleased with you for trying.

 

 

*Well it turns out that the two essays I saw were these:

http://phoenix-from-the-wasteland.com/blog1.php/Philosophy/

which means the "Initial Conditions" essay and the "Any Belief at All" essay.

I don't know how I got to the second one about belief. I actually liked that one best.

 

**Shucks! I just realized that the essay I liked about belief wasn't your writing, but was by somebody named Gaiman. You make that clear in the first sentence but for some reason I didn't register the first time.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Martin

[McGarr178]

And what we're saying is that they can't exist otherwise. Unless you can prove otherwise, the definition of initial conditions and everything we know (from observation, experimentation and our own definition) of initial condition is that it relies on the laws of physics.

 

Everything relies on the laws of physics. Time, too. "Before" makes no sense.

 

 

Quantum collapse is also part of the laws of physics, and whatever follows it is ALSO part of the laws of physics. Whatever you "narrow it down to", that follows the laws of physics as well.

 

~moo

 

I am not talking about before the laws of physics. I have also stated that the starting conditions would be stated in terms of the laws of physics and would not violate them.

 

What do you mean by "relies"?

 

There is no law of physics that states how a wave function will collapse. It is probabilistic.

 

What part of acausal do you not understand? It means with out cause - it is not caused by anything preceding it. In single instances it is unpredictable.

 

I really don't see what you are objecting to. An acausal event brings new information into the world. They are first causes. primum movens.

 

You can not predict the outcome of any experiment knowing only the laws of physics.

 

If I tell you there is a an atom. How can you tell me where it is or how fast it is moving just by knowing the laws of physics?

[mooeypoo]

I am not talking about before the laws of physics. I have also stated that the starting conditions would be stated in terms of the laws of physics and would not violate them.

That wasn't the statement that came accross your first few posts, so if this is what you mean, then we can continue.

 

What do you mean by "relies"?

That they did not "pop into existence" or that we do not relate to them as "outside" of the laws of physics. They are in the realm of physics.

 

There is no law of physics that states how a wave function will collapse. It is probabilistic.

Who stated that it's probabilistic? Physicists. What made them state so? The laws of physics, along with observation, analysis and critical thinking done with the scientific method.

 

What part of acausal do you not understand? It means with out cause - it is not caused by anything preceding it. In single instances it is unpredictable.

"acausal" literally means without a cause, indeed. It's not that I don't understand what "acausal" mean, I just don't understand how it fits in your logic or how it proves anything you're trying to say.

 

It is also something you cannot prove or disprove, hence it is not in the realm of science. Maybe philosophy.

 

It seems to me you're jumping from one subject to another -- you're trying to use sound scientific phenomena to jump into philosophical conclusion that doesn't *quite* follow.

 

Like the next sentence:

I really don't see what you are objecting to. An acausal event brings new information into the world. They are first causes. primum movens.

 

What would be a "first cause"? A good physicist will always ask "what made that happen?" Sometimes we don't have an immediate answer, but that doesn't mean we give up on the question.

 

You can not predict the outcome of any experiment knowing only the laws of physics.

The previous sentence does not lead to this sentence, McGarr. The logic does not follow. Even if you have "first cause", the laws of physics exist and make those "first whatevers" *react*.

 

The sole reason you would not be able to predict something is because you don't *yet* know of ALL the rules that affect that phenomena. That does not mean that the phenomena is beyond science or that it is in the realm of supernatural. It means that we should ask more quesstions and devise more methods to finding out what we're missing.

[Martin]

McGarr,

 

I hope I'm not being dense or impertinent. What do you get by arguing with any of us? I'm not saying you shouldn't! We like to argue and we do a lot and it can be beneficial. But what does it do for you specifically?

 

Would it be fair to say that you have some kind of vision that causes you to rejoice in the universe? And this vision has absorbed a fair amount of post-1950 quantum physics and cosmology----either as serious premise or as metaphor?

 

You say in one of your posts that you come here (to sfn) to learn. I wonder what you can learn. Is there anything you can learn from me, I wonder.

You could also try to teach---you could be posting links to writings and recorded lectures by Roger Penrose, for instance. You could be trying to get other people here to look at them. This might fail of course.

 

Argument is the most sure-fire mode of engagement. There is always that.

 

BTW it is not settled that the universe began with the big bang. Until around 2005 the orthodox view was that "before the bb" was meaningless because there was no time. but since then there's been a shift in the research community. just hasn't been popularized yet. links if you want

[McGarr178]

 

The sole reason you would not be able to predict something is because you don't *yet* know of ALL the rules that affect that phenomena. That does not mean that the phenomena is beyond science or that it is in the realm of supernatural. It means that we should ask more quesstions and devise more methods to finding out what we're missing.

 

I aggree my point is more philosophical than scientific. Perhaps I was wrong to post here.

 

I also concur that it is impossible to prove that an event is acausal. I suppose I am more interested in exploring the implications of that possibility rather than proving it.

 

Regarding predicting an experiment. I was not offering indeterminacy as evidence of this. I'm talking on a more fundamental level. Perhaps the point is so obvious and trivial that you are missing it.

 

Even if you did know all of the laws effecting an experiment you could still not predict anything unless you have initial measurements.

 

If there are many different universes that are consistent with the observed laws of physics then the laws of physics can not tell us which one we are in.

 

Perhaps there is only one universe that is consistent with the laws of physics but I imagine that would be very difficult to prove.