Determinism and the Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by markl323, Jan 28, 2009.

  1. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    yet all the Universe is about is a place for life to stand on

    Free-will is about having the ability to think beyond just survival
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Don't know about that. Most of the universe is not there for life to stand on. Even in our solar system, only 12.5% of the planets were made for life to stand on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not one planet in the entire universe is made for life to stand on.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    really

    Earth
     
  8. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,606
    Free Will is an oxymoron... but its interestin to observe people tryin to convience therselfs they have som of it.!!!
     
  9. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Earth was made for life to stand on ? In other words, Earth was created with the intention of having the ability of supporting life ?
     
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,606

    We dont know if it was or it wasnt (that i know of)... but cause an effect makes the world go round... eh.!!!
     
  11. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Earth was made for Man like a depression is made for the rainwater that fills it.
     
  12. laladopi time for change. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Quantum mechanics kills everything.
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,606

    Its not that millions of thangs had to go rite... thangs went the only way they coud... which lead to the 1 an only out-com posible (the high-five)... an givin the initial circunstances... it woud have been incredible if the "high-five" didnt occur at that instant in time an at that precise locatiion in space.!!!



    If you set up 10 dominos in a row an knock the firs 1 over... all the dominos will eventualy get knocked over by the precedin domino... or if you set up 1 million dominos an knock the firs 1 over... all the dominos will will eventualy get knocked over by the precedin domino.!!!

    You can try that esperiment wit 10 dominos over an over... an ever time they will all get knocked over... why do you thank the sam woudnt hold true for 1 million or 1 trilliion dominos.???

    Jus thank how complicated a TV is... an how many thangs have to work precisely for the TV to work properly... an yet... thers nuthin incredible about a TV that works properly.!!!

    Acordin to you'r reasonin... surly the "infinite" number of precise evolutonary factors necesary for humans to have evolved to the pont we have woud be imposible... an yet... here we are.!!!
     
  14. The Breaker Registered Member

    Messages:
    87
    Look, we really don't understand the big bang very well so trying to make an argument from it is very difficult. It appears that quantum mechanics does destroy determinism, but this is not an argument for free will. If quantum mechanics throws out determinism, it also throws out free will. There are no choices in a probabilistic universe. However, time does not exist at the planck scale, at least not in the same macroscopic way we look at it. So if time doesn't really exist, than both determinism and free will are incorrect.
     
  15. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,606
    If time does esist... does free-will esist.???

    Edit:::
    Welcom to the groop... new person

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    It's like a magician's tricks. Full of flim-flam to make the simple look very difficult. Common-sense kills QM.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    LOL !!!
    Can "common sense" predict the results of experiments with 12 figure accuracy?
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Unless I misinterpret your post, the implication is that QM makes predictions that then are tested and confirmed to 12 figure accuracy, and therefore the evidence that supports the theory upon which the prediction was made is strengthened.

    Though it is always a credit to the theory when predictions can be confirmed, it does not move the theory from ... well, theory into fact. The reason it doesn't make QM fact is because science has learned from experience that the nature of scientific understanding is tentative. All theories have the characteristic of "tentativeness" because the scientific method allows for future game changing discoveries.

    My point is that it is a legitimate postion to take that common sense tells us that when looking at the field of quantum mechanics as a whole, the science is not yet complete. Not yet proven to fit with other theories that have formitable peer following, like General Relativity for example. Common sense tells us that when there is imcompatibility between the leading competeing theories, there is more to be learned. Maybe within that learning there will be game changing discoveries.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes that is what I referred to. I will note that there are only a few experiments that have such accuracy. All that I know of are essentially counting something, like the number of cycles in second (the second is one of the things we can determine with that accuracy as it too is just counting the number of cycles. Usually the potential accuracy of the QM predictions cannot be experimentally tested. I said "potential" as often computer computational errors prevent that accuracy form being achieved even when the theory can calculate form first principles, like for the hydrogen atom's energy levels, interaction with the nuclear spin, etc.

    I am not well versed here. Are you referring to some real incompatibility? I.e. QM says "A" and SR says "B" (with A not equal to B) for the same conditions.

    Or are you referring to things like gravity theory does not seem possible to fit into and common theoretical frame with the other three fundamental forces. I.e. just because QM is not a subset or special case of some more general theory that also includes SR is not a real "incompatibility" AFAIK. It is only that despite human wishes there may be no over aching general theory.

    Please tell how QM and SR are "incompatible" (or give reference to that discussion). Until you do, I will continue to think they are compatible and your claim / POV is in error. I do not mean to state by this that you are wrong – just that I am ignorant of any incompatibility existing.
     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Every since I have been doing my self-learning on the Internet I have been running into the comment that GR and QM are incompatible. From the very first time I heard about it I have read the links and looked after efforts to solve the incompatibility. Quantum gravity, and the breakdown of GR in the Planck regime are two of the main topics I have run into.

    For your benefit I Googled "incompatibility general relativity and quantum mechanics". 166,000 links. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=incompatibility general relativity and quantum mechanics
    There are efforts to reconcile the two but as far as I know there is no unification of the theories.

    If anyone knows better please let me know. Until then I will assume you have researched the links I have provided and have solidified you position one way or the other. If you still think they are compatible let me know and I will walk through it with you to see where one of us has gotten off track.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Again lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility! I gave an example of "incompatiblity" in prior post: (SR---> A & GR ---> B with A not equal to B under same conditions is required.)

    GUT, a general universal theory, would be nice, but nature may have rulled that out without making the theory of domain A ïncompatable" with the theory for domain B. I.e. each is valid in its domain.
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Again, the incompatibility issue between GR and QM has not been kept secret. I googled it and found 166,000 links that discuss the topic. If you feel that is not enough info to guide you as to whether it is "incompatible" or just a "lack of ability or even proof that two theories are not special cases of one more general unified theory is NOT incompatibility!", then show me why you disagree with the mainstream view on this subject.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I do not think I disagree with the main stream POV. We are now using "incompatible" in two different ways - different meanings. I have carefully defined my use of the term - you have not.

    Again: For me, two theories are incompatible when they predict two different results for the same experiment. One must be wrong or at least incomplete - that was how this discussion got started. You said QM was incomplete or wrong and in disagreement with common sense. Initially you were NOT discussing the difficulty of merging two theories* into one, more general formalism. I have continued to use the word the same way in all posts, but you have switched to another meaning of it.

    The two theories are NOT incompatible, in the sense of that word we both were using initially, (common sense predicts different results from QM) if they only have such different theoretical structures that it is impossible to find any more general theory that encompasses both. I am quite sure that “structural incompatibility” is what most of your 166,000 links are about. The difficulty of finding one more general theoretical structure that encompasses both narrower domains of the two separate theories is a form of “incompatibility” but that is not what we started to discuss. It all started with the fact that QM does conflict with common sense.

    In case you forgot, here is the last paragraph of your post 75:
    --------------
    *If your "common sense" dictates that there MUST be one formal structure that ALL other more narrow theories are a special case of, then I would not call that "common sense" - perhaps that is a faith or strong wish. I seriously doubt that "game theory" and QM will ever both fall out of some GUT (General Universal Theory). But of course that is just based on my common sense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BTW, initially QM had two entirely different formalism (Matrix and equation forms). Some even argued which was more correct, but both were making the same predictions. Eventually some good mathematician demonstrated they were identical, even though entirely different in their formalisms. I had my QM courses so long ago that I had to do problems using both formalisms. I do not know if both are still taught in QM courses.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2009

Share This Page