|
|
#21
11-14-2007, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ 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 ] He also published a clearly flawed "proof" of god's existence. But he is famous. 
|
|
#23
11-14-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
A) 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 ] While I don't agree with Bork, Descartes wasn't exactly a master logician. Hell, even in his math he was prone to unjustified assumptions.
|
|
#24
11-14-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
We cannot possibly know that. [/ QUOTE ] well according to our physcists the laws of physics break down or are not valid within a singularity. I'm assuming this is true. pokervintage
|
|
#25
11-14-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] We cannot possibly know that. [/ QUOTE ] well according to our physcists the laws of physics break down or are not valid within a singularity. I'm assuming this is true. pokervintage [/ QUOTE ] So what? The "laws" of physics are nothing more than mathematical constructs that allow us to predict observable phenomena. Our physicists are not omniscient by any stretch of the imagination, nor do they claim to be. True, our current approximations of the universe (which no physicist would claim are complete) do not allow us to predict or describe anything before the big bang or within a singularity. But that does not mean that the big bang was unpredictable or that no predictable laws govern the behavior of singularities. Our laws of physics are based on what we can observe. We haven't discovered a way to observe singularities. If we could, maybe we would be able to create laws that would predict their behavior. There is far too much we don't understand about our universe to assume that because we haven't found a way to predict or describe an observation, it could never be predicted or described.
|
|
#26
11-14-2007, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
There is far too much we don't understand about our universe to assume that because we haven't found a way to predict or describe an observation, it could never be predicted or described. [/ QUOTE ] I beieve that I said that we must asume that the laws of physics are not valid within a singularity. I also assume that we are saying that because of this, events that occur within a singularity, are not and can not be predicted by any intelligence even an omniscient one. In other words they are unpredictable. An omniscient being would know this is true just as he would know math theories are true and unchangeable. I believe these assumptions are fair given what we assume to be true about black holes (should they actually exist as our physicists believe). pokervintage
|
|
#27
11-14-2007, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is far too much we don't understand about our universe to assume that because we haven't found a way to predict or describe an observation, it could never be predicted or described. [/ QUOTE ] I beieve that I said that we must asume that the laws of physics are not valid within a singularity. I also assume that we are saying that because of this, events that occur within a singularity, are not and can not be predicted by any intelligence even an omniscient one. In other words they are unpredictable. An omniscient being would know this is true just as he would know math theories are true and unchangeable. I believe these assumptions are fair given what we assume to be true about black holes (should they actually exist as our physicists believe). pokervintage [/ QUOTE ] The bolded part is wrong. An omniscient being would know all possible outcomes and have a reason why the normal laws of physics break down past a normal singularity. The big bang is termed a singularity of sorts, and is treated as a singular event. This may be correct, but it's certainly incorrect to compare black holes with big bangs. The properties of the two should logically be different. There is much yet to discover about the exotic properties of this universe. What's for certain is the event is unique. You cannot compare something that expanded spacetime to a huge, complex structure to a normal black hole. Apples and oranges. The OP asks whether it was a random event. Probably not, but as far as science knows, it is an unique event.
|
|
#28
11-14-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
The OP asks whether it was a random event. Probably not, [/ QUOTE ] This is the crux of the question. Why is the answer to a random event "probably not"? pokervintage
|
|
#29
11-14-2007, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The OP asks whether it was a random event. Probably not, [/ QUOTE ] This is the crux of the question. Why is the answer to a random event "probably not"? pokervintage [/ QUOTE ] The best answer I can give is that it happened and there is such a thing as axiomatic logic. Perhaps an astrophysicist can give a more meaningful answer. I'll try though. In a scenario with infinite potential and infinite possible outcomes, randomness cannot emerge except as a perceptual mistake made by a finite being. Just theory, of course, but if the scope is that big, and omniscience exists, everything that will happen, must happen, but the sequences would only appear random on a linear vector. That doesn't discredit uncertainity, however.
|
|
#30
11-14-2007, 09:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Was the Bing Bang a Random event?
[ QUOTE ]
randomness cannot emerge except as a perceptual mistake made by a finite being [/ QUOTE ] This is not meant as criticism but this sounds like doublespeak. [ QUOTE ] but if the scope is that big, and omniscience exists,everything that will happen, must happen, but the sequences would only appear random on a linear vector. [/ QUOTE ] Do you also mean that everything that "can" happen, must happen? Your argument sounds similar to the poster that said that nothing is truly random. I agree with that because in a physical world we cannot imagine true randomness in the strict definition of the word. But we are not talking about a physical world. We are speaking of a singularity. A place where physics does not apply. A place where events are not deterministic. 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. Oh, one other thing. I am sure that you are a lot smarter than me so please show some compassion. pokervintage
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
