This is the Universe of the consequences.

[Enric]

This is not the Universe of Chaos. It is the Universe of the consequences, but we are not aware of all of them,

and it is to every last atom and the last molecule. This is so since the time and distance were made and applied, ie, Entropy.

If everything were paralyzed because there were no time and distance, entropy does not exist.

And another thought:

We're just an effect of the chemical in an entropic Universe.

But chemistry was foreseen at the time of the big bang, and with it, it was also foreseen that we would appear and we would do what we do. Because this reason we are here and we do what we do. Perhaps this means nothing, but it is strange, weird and disturbing.

Enric

Catalonia.

[Roamer]

I think this is still the universe of chaos,

consequences only exist if one cares about them, hence they're an quality of (semi-conscious) life, not of the universe as a whole.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

There are rules for speculations posts, the first of which is

 

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

If you can't formulate a model or hypothesis which can address the issues of that rule, then the thread will be shuttered.

 

[Enric]

We are here. This is a testable evidence. And this is the reason of my words. For me, consequences is the atom A crashes with atom B and they, because this, with atoms C and D, and so... infinite consequences...

[Phi for All]

I don't understand what we're supposed to do with this explanation. It doesn't seem to explain anything better.

 

I also don't understand what you mean by "foreseen". Foreseen by whom?

 

Also, your reasoning for why we do what we do seems circular. We do what we do because we are here and do what we do? Again, this explains nothing.

[Enric]

I don't know "whom". I only know that I'm here because is foreseen in this chain reaction. Like executing a computer program. Or the movements of a balls in a billiard table.

 

If time could reverse, this chain reaction could also reverse to the beginning. So, this Universe is a chain reaction. Atom level, or more little. of course. This is all theory. Maybe we can go to the trash can.

[swansont]

I don't know "whom". I only know that I'm here because is foreseen in this chain reaction. Like executing a computer program. Or the movements of a balls in a billiard table.

 

If time could reverse, this chain reaction could also reverse to the beginning. So, this Universe is a chain reaction. Atom level, or more little. of course. This is all theory. Maybe we can go to the trash can.

 

 

How could you falsify this notion?

[Enric]

This is the Universe of Maths. There's no space for random. In a hypothetical blackboard bigger than Universe, and based in the present situation, you could write the equation of the Universe. From the beginning to the end. And we appear in it because is foreseen in the equation. It is the only thing I know.

[Phi for All]

All right, "foreseen" isn't the right word, it implies that something or someone has glimpsed the future. Perhaps you mean that the universe is predetermined, that things will happen in a certain sequence no matter how hard we try to change it?

 

It is the only thing I know.

 

How do you "know" this?

 

First you claim this is "theory" (which is wrong; a theory is the strongest, best supported explanation in all of science, with tons of supportive, peer-reviewed evidence), but your use of the word implies you're speculating, then you claim "It is the only thing I know", which is a very assertive statement.

 

Sorry for being picky about this, but scientists are going to ask you to show how you reached your conclusions. If you claim something is true, nobody is going to accept that without showing why.

 

Your subject is interesting, but the discussion will keep circling around these assertive statements if you keep making them. It might be better to keep your hypothesis a little less rigid for now, so we can ask some questions and discuss your idea more productively.

 

If the chemistry of the universe might be a formula one could write on an imaginary blackboard, isn't it possible I can affect the equation with choice? And if choice can change it, how could it be predetermined at the time of the Big Bang?

[Enric]

I think there are not choices. But it seems there are choices for us. And allways will seem it. Like line 1280 before line 1290 in a old Basic programm. Line 1280 is very real for us. As real as line 1290 when we arrive.

 

In other hand, before this reasoning I was completely skeptical. Now I'm half-skeptical. With a little, very little luck, maybe there is a God or "something". Is the only conclusion for an atheist.

[Dekan]

This is the Universe of Maths. There's no space for random. In a hypothetical blackboard bigger than Universe, and based in the present situation, you could write the equation of the Universe. From the beginning to the end. And we appear in it because is foreseen in the equation. It is the only thing I know.

I think that's true, because the Universe does seem to run on mathematical principles. And in mathematics, there's no true randomness. 2 + 2 always equals 4, and the square on the hypotenuse always equals the sum of the squares of the two other sides.

 

Given this mathematical nature of the Universe, any apparent randomness that we observe, must be due to the inadequacy of our observations and measurements.. For example, to take Enric's #5 analogy of the billiard table. Suppose we

could make precise measurements of all the objects involved - the table, the balls, and the cue. And of the person controlling the cue. His hands, arms, his eyes, Even of his brain - with all its " little grey cells" furiously processing visual input, synapses flashing, as he eyes up the situation, and makes his shot.

 

If such measurements could be made, couldn't his shot be precisely predicted. And then the consequences of the shot - which ball is struck, which ball is then struck, and so on. In a consequential chain reaction, like Enric said.

 

The fact that in practice, we can't make such precise predictions, doesn't seem to mean that randomness has to be invoked. Every consequence is governed by non-random mathematics.

And if mathematics governs the Universe, then everything that happens in the Universe should in theory be predictable.

 

Thus, starting with basic particles such as quarks, we ought to be able to predict the consequential evolution of protons, atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms, and the human brain.

Such things wouldn't be the result of randomness, or guidance by some supernatural entity. Just the mathematical consequence of a chain of reactions.

[Enric]

I think is better to live in a program than in a chaos. Maybe helps somebody in someway.

Chaos is chaos. A program perhaps needs a programmer. With a little luck. Who knows. It's better than nothing. Sorry for my English.

Too much injustice in the world. It seems chaos. But pure logic points to the program, and consequence after consequence. Who knows.

The next logical conclusion is that we have absolutely no importance. Universe is too much big and we are too much little.

A hope, in my opinion, is the particularity of intelligence and life -this growing and growing effect of chemistry- to domesticate the environment and to put some kind of justice -more slowly- in it. Intelligence allways grows in the evolution in all cases. Maybe some day in a far future we have enough knowledge to change things and Universe. In all cases, we will be programmed for this. Perhaps all this programation have some sense in some moment! My intuition says that we are in the prehistory of something and we suffer for this. But this is subjective. At last, something subjective!

[Enric]

Summarizing seriously: I want to say, as I said, that I think it's better to live in a Program that improves, at least a bit, each moment -or each era-, than in a chaos. Chaos is more Chaos each moment.

[Ophiolite]

This appears to be philosophy, not science. You suggest (as an opinion and a value judgement) that it is better to be following a predetermined path that has a defined outcome (that may be a good outcome) than to risk the consequences of having freedom of choice. It is an old debate. Are you adding anything new to it?

[Enric]

No, in fact. Perhaps helping somebody that don't know this debate since my point of view. A lot of people doesn't know this reasoning till the last consequence. But, you can close this thread if you want. If everybody knows...

[swansont]

But, you can close this thread if you want. If everybody knows...

 

!

Moderator Note

It's not a matter of everybody knowing, per se. It's a matter of this being philosophy or some scientific inquiry that falls under the rubric of speculations. It's now obvious that it's not the latter.