Was the Bing Bang a Random event?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Meh, most people (philosopher types) just accept that there on limits on God if he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosopher and mathematician René Descartes disagrees with that. Surely logic was tremendously important to him as a mathematician, yet he also accepted that God could defy logic. To Descartes, God truly was without limits I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Descartes had many silly ideas. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
You mentioned that most "philosopher types" accept the idea, so I pointed to a very prominent example of a "philosopher type" who does not. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but I think it's especially interesting considering Descartes would have needed a very strong handle on logic in order to do his mathematical work.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many accounts do you need, splendour?

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Descartes had many silly ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was french.

pokervintage

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, one other thing. I am sure that you are a lot smarter than me so please show some compassion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I treat everybody fairly, regardless of intelligence, so no worries on that score. You may be giving me too much credit, however.

I just think a multiverse model is viable, and I spend a lot of time thinking about infinity and the possibilities and reasoning behind it. That doesn't make me smarter than anybody, just more willing to be wrong and take risks.

[ QUOTE ]
The event, the big bang, is not the issue. We can also assume that the result of the event, the big bang, was the only possible result. The random event of which I am trying to establish is the cause of the big bang. Certainly we do not know the cause, o.k. or even if there was a cause. I am again assuming that there was a cause. I am also assuming that the cause came from within. I guess we could argue that something like the singularity ran into a smaller amount of anti-matter and the result was a tremendous release of enregy resulting in the universe (not anyone's theory just a made up point). But the real point is that within a universe (and I believe that the singularity can be considered a universe) that is not bound by nor even responds to physical laws, randomness is (o.k. may be) possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you're describing an oscillating universe model. This might be viable, but each iteration would have a different result and there would be an infinite series of results. I don't think there's a first cause but there is probability and potentiality.

Whether the big bang is an unique event or a significant event in a succession of events... It's difficult to ascertain without more information, and that is what exactly science lacks in practical terms. They can only theorize as to how and why.

And until this event is replicated successfully perhaps through a computer model or an industrial accident, more likely the latter given man's predilection for such... Opinion would be divided.

I think randomness can occur in finite sets in where the outcome is uncertain, but on large scales, it cannot occur in infinite sets because the properties of infinity seem to determine that everything will happen, just that the when is uncertain.

Perhaps the big bang happened at a random time in a finite set of potential events, and there were other singularities that came to nothing or had no result. Basically null-events.

A deeper look into multiversal models and contrarian outlooks on temporal theory forces one to grasp at things without the background of previous proofs. It's uncharted territory. There is logic behind it though, and dead end or no, I'll continue exploring the possibilities.

I just don't see infinity as a blanket situation, but something with structures within structures. Makes me a little odd and probably disagreeing with some of the basic accepted theories.

[pokervintage]

I'm done. Thanks

pokervintage

[StayHungry]

the big bang was THE random event, it won't ever be anything other than 100% random and unexplainable, unless the leaders of the future world convince all of humanity they know why it happened.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
We are speaking of a singularity. A place where physics does not apply. A place where events are not deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we don't know this. As I understand it, M theory ( link ) may allow us to predict and explain the big bang. Right now it is still an unproven, incomplete mathematical construct, but that doesn't mean it will be wrong.

You seem to be making an unwarranted assumption about the completeness of our laws of physics. It is not correct to conclude that because our current theories can't explain or predict singularities, that singularities are not governed by predictable laws. It is entirely possible (and in my view, more likely than not) that the behavior of singularities is entirely deterministic (or at least probabilistic) and predictable. It also may be that we will never be able to determine the rules that govern singularities because of limits on our ability to observe and perceive physical phenomena or because of biological limits on our math ability. But that does not mean that no rules, in fact, govern their behavior.