What caused/created the Big Bang/God?

File: 15 KB, 302x306, ah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:27:13 2011 No.2345991 [Reply] [Original]

What caused/created the Big Bang/God?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:31:13 2011 No.2346002 Most likely nothing, just popped out of nowhere. If you're actually interested about this shit, then you should read Hawking's the grand design. Just finished reading it and it was awesome.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:32:13 2011 No.2346004 Both were tricks created by Satan to deceive you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:32:13 2011 No.2346005 God is the causeless cause. God created the big bang.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:33:13 2011 No.2346011

big bang= two membranes collided, in which the resulting energy caused a big bang in our membrane

membrane= universe

In other words, a multiverse in which two universes collided.

Afterwords, sccording to scientists the universe is and always was. Didnt need a creator. Inb4 law of cause and effect it only affects matter

As for god, lol sand nigger fairy tales

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:33:13 2011 No.2346012 >>2346002 >implying that nowhere is a place from which a thing can pop.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:34:13 2011 No.2346015

perhaps the singularity that the big bang formed from had existed for eternity beforehand. Or maby there was an entire universe that ended with a big crunch that occurred beforehand.

Whatever may have existed before the big bang will probably remain unknown due to the big bang destroying all information of existence prior to it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:34:13 2011 No.2346018 >>2346011 >Afterwords, sccording to scientists the universe is and always was. lol fairy tales

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:35:13 2011 No.2346020 >>2346018 apprently the universe doesnt give a shit about human logic. You're thinking in 3 dimensions broheim

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:36:13 2011 No.2346023

>>2346015

>Whatever may have existed before the big bang will probably remain unknown due to the big bang destroying all information of existence prior to it.

Considering that the universe doesnt give a rats ass about perfection, I wouldnt think thats the case, there could potentially be a away to find out

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:37:13 2011 No.2346027

>>2346011
You still can't come up with an an answer as to how anything ever came into existence, yet you act superior because you "think" you know the "right" answer. You're answer is illogical and should be disregarded because nothing can not come out of something.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:37:13 2011 No.2346029

>>2346020
I agree with this anon.

Only human thinking insists that their must be a begining to the universe.

Perhaps time stretches on infinitely in both directions.

Certainly seems more plausible that some divine intervention or impossible accident.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:39:13 2011 No.2346037 >>2346023 >Considering that the universe doesnt give a rats ass about perfection I'm not sure if you read my post correctly. I didn't mention perfection.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:39:13 2011 No.2346040

>>2346027

>yet you act superior because you "think" you know the "right" answer.

Actually im saying that scientists know the right answer

And considering there track record, it wouldnt be much of a stretch to trust in them

>You're answer is illogical and should be disregarded because nothing can not come out of something.

But anon, how can something come out of nothing if there was never such thing as a nothing?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:41:13 2011 No.2346046

>>2346037

What I mean is that to say that the unvierse would destroy every single bit of information about past universes would be to imply that the universe is perfect, which obviously its not. as such, its not to much of a stretch to say hat it would be possible to find out what happened before the big bang

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:43:13 2011 No.2346057 File: 24 KB, 768x602, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:43:13 2011 No.2346060 >>2346046 Im just saying if you take a book and crush it into a singularity with the rest of the universe then there's no way to restore that book to readable condition, or any way to tell what it said in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:44:13 2011 No.2346063 >>2346040 >how can something come out of nothing if there was never such thing as a nothing? wat?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:44:13 2011 No.2346064

>>2345991
To the trolls in this thread, and the troll feeders: The big bang theory does not say there was nothing before the big bang. There might have been something before the big bang. There might not have.

Something physical might have existed infinitely far into the past. There might have been a beginning.

Why do I think it's reasonable that the universe just started without a "cause"? Because I don't have any good evidence to the contrary. To postulate that the "cause" was a cause-less, time-less yet still able to take actions and thought, entity, seems even more ludicrous. It's also an unnecessary hypothesis, and thus should be rejected under Occam's Razor.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:46:13 2011 No.2346069

>>2346060

Well, thats quite different actually. Althouhg now that i think about it im wrong anyways. I was going to say that if we had an ultracomputer that could calculate every single particle in the universe, we could see forwards and backwards in time according to the law of cause and effect. I then remembered that if you take the fact that singularities ass fuck the laws of physics that would be a problem

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:47:13 2011 No.2346072 >>2346063 Before the big bang, theres was a universe and a fuckton of energy, theres no such thing as a time of nothing

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:49:13 2011 No.2346079

>>2346064
No, it is actually compelled by occam's razor. An infinite regression of causes is a logical fallacy. It's also multiplying entities infinitely, which pisses occam off infinitely. There should therefore be a first cause, and it should be something which itself doesn't need a cause, so it should be infinite, immutable and transcendent of any kind of time or space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:50:13 2011 No.2346083 >>2346069 But where General Relativity gives singularities, it probably is failing. There probably are not real singularities.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:51:13 2011 No.2346086

>>2346079
>An infinite regression of causes is a logical fallacy.
So you claim. I remain unconvinced. It seems just as counter-intuitive as some thing which can speak to humans but doesn't experience time. In fact, I think it's more counter-intuitive than something existing without time.

>It's also multiplying entities infinitely, which pisses occam off infinitely. There should therefore be a first cause, and it should be something which itself doesn't need a cause, so it should be infinite, immutable and transcendent of any kind of time or space.
So, you don't mind infinities if it's god, but as soon as we're talking about an infinite universe, then that seems counter-intuitive. Right.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:52:13 2011 No.2346087 File: 11 KB, 224x224, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2346072 So what created that universe? And where did this "energy" come from?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:52:13 2011 No.2346089 >>2346079 >Something caused the universe and events play out infinitely from that point OR >The universe is infinite Applying Occam razor...

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:54:13 2011 No.2346092

>>2346079

>An infinite regression of causes is a logical fallacy

Once again thinking in 3 dimensions and the universe doesnt give a fuck about human logic

Also, applying ochams razor to a first cause causes problems, as saying that a first caused created the universes compels you to ask what caused the first cause, and in and of itself is an infinite regression.

As such, you have two options, goddunit or universe dunnit, either way though you have a unvierse in question, but only one has the higher idea, that goddunit. If you then take occhams razor into consideration, you would cut out the middle man and make it simpler, in other words, infinite regress universe is more logical than infinite regress god

>There should therefore be a first cause, and it should be something which itself doesn't need a cause, so it should be infinite, immutable and transcendent of any kind of time or space.

You've read to many fairy tales poor anon. I recommend putting yourself out of your misery

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:54:13 2011 No.2346093 >>2346087 nowhere. The same energy had been cycling around in big bangs and big crunches forever

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:55:13 2011 No.2346098 >>2346087 >So what created that universe? And where did this "energy" come from? Was always there. inb4 infinite regress, read >>2346092

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:55:13 2011 No.2346099 Can everyone just agree that we don't know how anything came into existence, and contract on the here and now?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:56:13 2011 No.2346101

>>2346079
My subtle point is this:

Option 1- infinitely old universe. Some religious nuts don't like this idea, but it doesn't bother me.

Option 2- The universe, space, time, and everything and anything had a beginning in the finite past. It is causeless.

Option 3- The universe, space, time, and everything and anything had a beginning in the finite past. The cause of this was god, who himself is causeless.

See how Occam's Razor doesn't like option 3? It has an additional hypothesis entirely unsupported by evidence. It's an entirely useless and unnecessary conjecture to talk about timeless causeless things.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:56:13 2011 No.2346102

>Only human thinking insists that their must be a begining to the universe.
And what the fuck kind of thinking is it that your prefer to human thinking?

>Perhaps time stretches on infinitely in both directions.
Causality can't. If it does, it forms an arbitrary chain of causation, which itself needs a cause, so it doesn't solve the problem anyway. It also introduces paradoxes, as it requires actual infinities of events. It is a convenient cop-out to imagine that universe and its causality always existed. But it is refuted by logic.

>Certainly seems more plausible that some divine intervention or impossible accident.
If one thing is consistent with logic, and the other is inconsistent, the inconsistent one is not more plausible. Relax, it doesn't mean you have to stop fucking your sister if that's what you're worried about.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:56:13 2011 No.2346107

>>2346099
>Can everyone just agree that we don't know how anything came into existence, and contract on the here and now?
That's what the non-religious people in this thread are stating. We're arguing that the religious arguments are not compelling and concluding we don't know.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:57:13 2011 No.2346109 >>2346083 Huh. Mind rephrasing that? I dont get what you mean by "But where General Relativity gives singularities, it probably is failing"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 02:58:13 2011 No.2346110 >>2346092 >>2346098 So why is it that an illogical creation of existence lead to a logical universe with laws?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:00:13 2011 No.2346119

>So you claim. I remain unconvinced. It seems just as counter-intuitive as some thing which can speak to humans but doesn't experience time. In fact, I think it's more counter-intuitive than something existing without time.
I'm not saying it can speak to humans. It is immutable. Anything it "does" it "does" timelessly. It has no events. Do you think numbers don't exist without time? Is the Pythagorean theorem somehow time dependent, or is it an eternal truth?

>So, you don't mind infinities if it's god, but as soon as we're talking about an infinite universe, then that seems counter-intuitive.
No, an actual infinity of objects, or an infinitely long string of causes creates paradox. An eternally existing thing that never changes does not.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:00:13 2011 No.2346121

>>2346102

>And what the fuck kind of thinking is it that your prefer to human thinking?

Rational thinking

>It is a convenient cop-out to imagine that universe and its causality always existed. But it is refuted by logic.

You dont seem to get that god suffers under the same problem

>If one thing is consistent with logic, and the other is inconsistent, the inconsistent one is not more plausible. Relax, it doesn't mean you have to stop fucking your sister if that's what you're worried about.

wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:01:13 2011 No.2346127 >>2346110 >an illogical creation of existence Once again, stop applying human logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:02:13 2011 No.2346131 File: 63 KB, 600x600, Oh God.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >MY THOUGHTS ON HOW ANYTHING CAME INTO EXISTENCE

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:02:13 2011 No.2346132 >>2346004 ITT: Satan trolls you all.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:02:13 2011 No.2346133 >>2346127 Woops, pressed enter by accident. Anyways, you dont seem to get that there probably wasnt a creation of the universe, it was just there. No need to complicate things

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:03:13 2011 No.2346135 >>2346127 >Once again, stop applying human logic. But that's all we have. If you argue for an illogical proposition, don't hold your breath for converts.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:03:13 2011 No.2346137

>>2346092
>Once again thinking in 3 dimensions and the universe doesnt give a fuck about human logic
Applying logic to thinking is not "thinking in 3 dimensions".

>saying that a first caused created the universes compels you to ask what caused the first cause, and in and of itself is an infinite regression.
FFS, are you even paying attention? A first cause of necessity is a thing or set of things that is eternal and immutable. That's why it's a fucking first cause.

>As such, you have two options, goddunit or universe dunnit,
You're thinking in 1 dimension. You're as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:04:13 2011 No.2346143

>And what the fuck kind of thinking is it that your prefer to human thinking?
Oh I dont know, rationalist mostly

>Causality can't. If it does, it forms an arbitrary chain of causation, which itself needs a cause, so it doesn't solve the problem anyway. It also introduces paradoxes, as it requires actual infinities of events. It is a convenient cop-out to imagine that universe and its causality always existed. But it is refuted by logic.
What logic states that causality cannot chain infinitely?

If one thing is consistent with logic, and the other is inconsistent, the inconsistent one is not more plausible. Relax, it doesn't mean you have to stop fucking your sister if that's what you're worried about.
I don't have a sister and I dont understand what point you're trying to make...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:06:13 2011 No.2346148 >>2346137 But why must there be a first cause? And what causes first cause?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:07:13 2011 No.2346150

>>2346121
Rational thinking is what refutes the infinite regress of causes. You should read the Greek philosophers. They were good at this.

>You dont seem to get that god suffers under the same problem
"God" or a first cause, or a demiurge is what is necessitated by applying reason to the problem. There is no infinite regress of causes in something that is eternal and immutable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:07:13 2011 No.2346156 File: 14 KB, 427x412, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >nothingness never existed because everything always existed in an forever timeless existence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:08:13 2011 No.2346158 >>2346148 0/10 read the fucking thread

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:08:13 2011 No.2346160

>>2346137
>A first cause of necessity is a thing or set of things that is eternal and immutable. That's why it's a fucking first cause.
I disagree that a first cause must be immutable and eternal. I can fathom a thing that is the first cause which is neither.

In fact, it seems more intuitive to me that if there was a first cause, which a relatively rare property, that it wasn't also immutable and eternal, two other exceptionally rare properties.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:09:13 2011 No.2346161

>>2346135

>But that's all we have.

Theres... you know...scientific logic.

>>2346137

>Applying logic to thinking is not "thinking in 3 dimensions"

Except it is

>A first cause of necessity is a thing or set of things that is eternal and immutable. That's why it's a fucking first cause.

Nope, because 1 youd have to prove that the first cause is real and 2 youd have to ask why the first cause gets a free pass from waiting in line at the logic department

>You're thinking in 1 dimension. You're as dumb as a sack of hammers.

ooh getting a buttmad are we? ok, then tell me what other options there are, im listening. bear in mind, im asking which options are simpler than an infinite universe or a universe creating itself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:12:13 2011 No.2346169 >>2346160 Then what caused it? The fucking whole point of a first cause is that it has to be causeless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:13:13 2011 No.2346170 >>2346161 >thinks applying logic to thinking is thinking in 3 dimensions.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:14:13 2011 No.2346176

>>2346161
>Nope, because 1 youd have to prove that the first cause is real and 2 youd have to ask why the first cause gets a free pass from waiting in line at the logic department
It's real because it's necessary. It is not immune to logic. It follows logic, and as I've shown you, it's dictated by logic. You seem like you're not actually engaging your brain but just regurgitating dogmas.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:14:13 2011 No.2346177 All of you can suck my dick. With-with your smart talk... an-and your boyish good looks. THEY WILL GET YOU NOWHERE!

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:16:13 2011 No.2346185

>>2346169
Again, I don't see the problem with the idea that a baseball just pops into existence right now in my hand from nothing.

Obviously, that's contrary to a lot of science, but to extrapolate science from now to the beginning of the universe is almost certainly a bad extrapolation. IE: taking evidence outside of its domain, and attempting to gain knowledge about a very different kind of event than the evidence at hand.

In short, you have the assumption that if something had a beginning then it had a cause. I disagree that that assumption must be true. It might be; it might not.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:17:13 2011 No.2346189

>>2346170

>thinks applying logic to thinking is thinking in 3 dimensions.

Dont think to hard, youll fry your brain

>>2346176

>It's real because it's necessary.

Except its not, theres already two more simpler explanations according to occhams razor. But apparently you where indoctrinated and molested to much to understand.

Not even gonna bother responding to the rest of your reply since its just rephrasing what you just said

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:17:13 2011 No.2346190 The universe is apparently the only form of spontaneous generation that ever happened.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:17:13 2011 No.2346193 >>2346176 So how does a timeless and unchanging object such as first cause create a universe? Wouldn't creating something violate it's unchanging nature?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:18:13 2011 No.2346194

>>2346176
>It's real because it's necessary. It is not immune to logic. It follows logic, and as I've shown you, it's dictated by logic. You seem like you're not actually engaging your brain but just regurgitating dogmas.
Please don't hide behind logic. You're invoking plenty of a priori axioms - not pure logic.

One such assumption is that something with a beginning must have a cause. As I said, I am not compelled that this must be true. It might be true; it might not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:18:13 2011 No.2346199 >>2346190 >The universe is apparently the only form of spontaneous generation that ever happened. Or it existed forever into the past. Or god is the only kind of thing which is eternal and immutable. Take your pick.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:20:13 2011 No.2346206 >>2346199 At this point I'm open to anything.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:22:13 2011 No.2346216

>>2346190
>The universe is apparently the only form of spontaneous generation that ever happened.
You really need to read up on Quantum Theory. Spontaneous generation happens all of the time. One of the more popular conjectures is that the universe creation itself is analogous to the particle anti-particle spontaneous pair creation of Quantum Physics.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:22:13 2011 No.2346218

>>2346194
That things with beginnings must have causes is a basic axiom of reason. Without it we would have no science, for one. If you want to believe in an absurd and arbitrary universe, you can obviously do so, but that is inconsistent with any kind of reasonable induction from the beautifully ordered reality that science reveals to us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:23:13 2011 No.2346221 >>2346194 >You're invoking plenty of a priori axioms - Not a christfag, but had to look that up. Looking it up failed me. The fuck is a priori axiom?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:24:13 2011 No.2346227 >>2346218 >That things with beginnings must have causes law of cause and effect only affects matter, first off, and prove that the universe had a beggining

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:24:13 2011 No.2346228 >>2346216 Spontaneous particle/anti-particle generation is not actually "spontaneous" in any true sense. It is certainly not causeless. It is determined by quantum field evolution in the vacuum state.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:25:13 2011 No.2346230 >>2346228 >It is determined by quantum field evolution in the vacuum state. enlgish?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:25:13 2011 No.2346233

>>2346221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
>The terms a priori ("prior to") and a posteriori ("posterior to") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1] There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.

As in, the guy is invoking plenty of unjustified assertions, and not just bald logic.

Anything which naked logic says is true is a tautology, and tautologies are likely uninteresting in describing the real world.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:25:42 2011 No.2346235 [DELETED]

File: 334 KB, 1680x1050, bits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2345991
Every cause needs its own cause. It all boils down to something "coming from nothing". This may seem counter intuitive, some may even try and argue it is logically wrong, but the reason they would be so against such a proposition is because that happening would be absurd within the universe we live in... within the universe we live in.

Something cannot come from nothing because our universe is dictated by the conservation of energy among other laws. The "nothing" that everything "came from" wouldn't have such limitations. In fact, the question has now become, why wouldn't there be everything? And indeed that may be the case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:26:13 2011 No.2346245 >>2346235 Why does our universe even have laws period than?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:27:13 2011 No.2346247

>>2346227
>law of cause and effect only affects matter, first off,
So in your belief system photons come into existence without causes? Because in mine, they are caused by electrons dropping energy levels.

>and prove that the universe had a beggining
If the universe didn't have a beginning it creates paradoxes from infinitely long causal chains, as explained already ad nauseum. Therefore the universe had a beginning.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:27:13 2011 No.2346251

>>2346218
>That things with beginnings must have causes is a basic axiom of reason. Without it we would have no science, for one.
You're welcome to keep repeating this, and each time I will repeat that you're making a fallacy of the false dichotomy.

You can have a cause-less universe and still have everything else with causes, and thus you can still have science.

Also, how does it violate reason any less to say that god is cause-less as opposed to the universe is cause-less? Because it's timeless? How is timeless less of an asspull than a cause-less universe?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:27:13 2011 No.2346256

>>2346247
>If the universe didn't have a beginning it creates paradoxes from infinitely long causal chains, as explained already ad nauseum. Therefore the universe had a beginning.
And we disagree. I don't see any paradoxes from an infinitely old universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:28:13 2011 No.2346258 >>2346233 Ah Mind explaing what tautology is to? Sorry my highschool education sucked ass

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:28:13 2011 No.2346261 >>2346233 Yes, I was using the term logic a bit more broadly than that. Maybe I should have said "reason". But logic itself plays a part in identifying paradoxes that are involved in infinities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:28:13 2011 No.2346262 Potatoes

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:30:13 2011 No.2346275 >>2346218 No sorry quantum mechanics disagrees with you on that point. On an extremely small scale things happen with no 'cause' all the fucking time.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:30:13 2011 No.2346277

>>2346230
Imagine there are lots of little waves in the ocean, and as a seemingly random freak of nature they all overlap at the exact same place to create a huge rogue wave. A vacuum is often described as a sea of quantum waves. If they line up in just the right way, they can take the form of a pair of particles, that seem to us to just pop into existence.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:31:13 2011 No.2346278
File: 1.67 MB, 193x240, 1294817490341.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I created the universe. THINK ABOUT IT! My existence is the only reason this universe even exists. The universe only existed when I came into existence. So technically the universe was created on May 12, 1992 12:01 am.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:31:13 2011 No.2346279

>>2346261
And you likely don't have enough math to even start making claims like that.

For example, Achielles and the Tortoise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

Any paradox you bring up about actual infinities will be of that form. It really bothered the ancient Greeks that Achielles will never reach the Tortoise by that construction of an infinite number of steps between now and him reaching it, and that kind of argument is just as bunk now as it was then.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:32:13 2011 No.2346281 >>2346277 What about quantum decay? That's about as random and unpredictable and non-determinalistic as you can get. Do you want to say that it has a "cause"?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:32:13 2011 No.2346282

>>2346247

>So in your belief system

derp

>photons come into existence without causes?

The matter in particular was already there, then certain matter, such as energey sources like the sun made photons, to my understanding.

>they are caused by electrons dropping energy levels.

Because the atom caught the photon, but you need to remember it came from somewhere. LOL inb4 "GOTCHU"

>If the universe didn't have a beginning it creates paradoxes from infinitely long causal chains

Explain to me how its a paradox then well continue

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:32:13 2011 No.2346284 >>2346275 No, that's wrong. Nothing happens without cause in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe you haven't actually studied it and were misinformed by the Discovery Chanel. Having cause is not the same thing as being deterministic, btw.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:34:13 2011 No.2346287

>>2346258
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29
Basically, an always true statement. They're trivially true.

An example is "It will rain today, or it will not rain today."

Another is "I will be at the game tomorrow, or I will not be."

You can construct more elaborate examples, but a tautology is some statement with is always true for all possible true-false values of the variables of the boolean logic sentence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:34:13 2011 No.2346290 >>2346278 >May 12, 1992 Ewww, a 90s fag. Get out of 4chan, seriously. All you 90s fags need to get out. Now. You're ruining 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:35:13 2011 No.2346291 >>2346277 Ah interesting. So matter is fucking nothing? Cool

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:35:13 2011 No.2346292 >>2346281 It's caused by weak interaction and the exchange of heavy W and Z bosons.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:36:13 2011 No.2346294 File: 41 KB, 297x404, Old dude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why does nothingn exist? Why does something exist?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:36:13 2011 No.2346295

>>2346284
What is the "cause" of nuclear radioactive decay?

Can you define "cause" for me please, formally? The best I've been able to do is "A cause of an event is the preceding local area of the universe, which, using our physical laws we can predict the outcome (even if the prediction is probabilistic)."

Thus, to assert that everything has a cause is to assert that for every state of the universe, there was a preceding state.

Unless you want to supply a different definition of cause.

Frankly, I don't understand timeless beings because the idea is an asspull devoid from logic and reason, and talking about a timeless being as a cause of a timeful thing is an even bigger asspull.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:36:13 2011 No.2346299 >>2346291 Well, either matter is nothing or a vacuum is something. I think of it more as the latter. Matter and energy are unbalanced forms of the something and a vacuum is the balanced form.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:37:13 2011 No.2346300 >>2346287 So in other words you're saying its a two way dichotomy that christians like to deploy all the time? Alright then

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:37:13 2011 No.2346302 >>2346292 What caused the bosons to be exchanged?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:37:13 2011 No.2346304
File: 334 KB, 1680x1050, bits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2345991
Every cause needs its own cause. It all boils down to something "coming from nothing". This may seem counter intuitive, some may even try and argue it is logically wrong. The reason many would almost instinctively claim such a proposition is absurd is because that happening within our own universe would be absurd... within our own universe.

Something cannot "come from nothing" because our universe is dictated by the conservation of energy among other laws. The "nothing" that everything "came from" wouldn't have such limitations. The question has now become, why wouldn't there be everything? And indeed that may be the case.

The "nothing" people typically refer to is the absence of substance, like particles and light, tangible "things". However, even a perfect vacuum contains "something". Space itself is a thing. The fact that it is a portion of our universe makes it something. A true and absolute NOTHING would not only be a lack of the "stuff" that bounces around within our universe, it would also be a lack of the very laws that dictate every portion of our universe. There is absolutely no reason why anything logically possible wouldn't happen.

Bear in mind such a metaphysical explanation of existence gives us zilch in the way of physical insight. We may be part of a multiverse, we may not. Everything within this universe may be only be able to influence the "stuff" left over by the Big Bang and the universe may truly be an island onto itself, or perhaps the big bang is the equivalent of a gasoline molecule combustion in a much larger universe. If it's possible then it exists. The problem is figuring out which of the infinite number of possible universes is the universe we live in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:38:13 2011 No.2346307 >>2346295 sup >>2346292

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:39:13 2011 No.2346310

>>2346300
You can make it more complicated. It's hard to contrive a more complicated English example though.

A good example is: "Science cannot answer moral questions.". That's a tautology. It's trivially true based on the definitions of the terms involved.

Science can only answer "If I look at X, will I see Y" questions. Moral questions by definition are only of the form "Should I do X?". Thus science cannot answer moral questions (assuming you accept my definitions of the terms, which is a whole other problem).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:40:13 2011 No.2346311 File: 126 KB, 450x373, k154573_nigga just went full retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >87 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. How can you fags answer a question that doesn't have an answer?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:41:13 2011 No.2346315

>>2346307
What caused the bosons to be exchanged?

You can answer "X did". I can ask what caused X.

I can keep asking these questions. Eventually you'll have to answer with "I don't know", a circular cause, or "A wizard did it!".

I generally prefer the answer "I don't know", as the others are asspulls and asinine.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:43:13 2011 No.2346321

>>2346310

Ah, I see then. I think

However just as a little bit of insight, id say that science could potentially answer moral questions by saying either 1. theyre trivial or 2. you dont have a choice in the matter (fuck yeah law of cause and effect), if you take knocking down morality as an "answer"

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:45:13 2011 No.2346330

>>2346321
>2. you dont have a choice in the matter (fuck yeah law of cause and effect), if you take knocking down morality as an "answer"
That doesn't change the fact that moral questions are by definition "ought" questions, and science by definition cannot answer "ought" questions.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:47:13 2011 No.2346338

>>2346330

Well sure, but because of law and cause and effect, would "ought" even matter? The path would already be chosen for you, so i guess that goes back to the first answer that its trivial anyways.

I dunno, I think im wrong here somewhere now that i think of it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:48:13 2011 No.2346341

>>2346295
>What is the "cause" of nuclear radioactive decay?
The weak force? Heavy W and Z boson exchange?
Your definition of cause seems reasonable, but there are different kinds of causes. There are causes which are not prior states but are whatever it is that determined that the prior state would evolve into the former state.

>Frankly, I don't understand timeless beings because the idea is an asspull devoid from logic and reason,
Aren't numbers timeless objects? Aren't mathematical theorems timeless truths. Is that an asspull devoid from logic and reason? What about the universe that for whatever reason follows these mathematical principles and arranges itself according to them? Is it not in some way caused by that timeless cause of the mathematical principle it, for whatever reason, follows?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:49:13 2011 No.2346349

>>2346338
It might be a nonsensical question, but it doesn't change its truthfulness.

I can still posit things about invisible pink unicorns even though they don't exist.

Invisible pink unicorns can do basic arithmetic, or invisible pink unicorns cannot do basic arithmetic.

Another tautology.

The key is that nothing about the real world applies when calling something a tautology. Just the definitions of the terms involved, and the basic rules of logical deduction.

"The Earth is round" is not a tautology.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:51:13 2011 No.2346353

>>2346341
>Aren't numbers timeless objects? Aren't mathematical theorems timeless truths. Is that an asspull devoid from logic and reason?
Numbers are not objects. Mathematical theorems are not objects, nor truths. They're theorems. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Moreover, all of those are what we call "abstract", as in "only as ideas in our heads". Presumably this god thing of yours isn't an abstraction and, you know, actually caused the universe (according to your belief).

Arguing that abstract things are timeless as some sort of argument that a timeless god is reasonable doesn't bode well for god. That's just more evidence that god isn't real and is only in our heads.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:53:13 2011 No.2346359

>>2346304
People are apparently so disgusted by Christians that they would rather believe in absurdities like nothingness evolving into somethingness, than believe in a first cause.

Don't compromise your intellect just to seem different from people you don't like.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:53:13 2011 No.2346361 >>2346349 You kinda lost me but ok. Ill make sure to look that up myself anyways to get a little learned. Thanks bro

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:54:13 2011 No.2346363 >>2346353 So you're one of these people who believes that math just exists in our heads and that theorems weren't true until we discovered them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:55:13 2011 No.2346368 >>2346359 >OHMYGODPEOPLEHATEMYBELIEFSYSTEM STOPBEINGSODIFFERENTANDCONFORMHURPDURP

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:57:13 2011 No.2346376 >>2346368 wat?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 03:59:13 2011 No.2346383

>>2346363
>So you're one of these people who believes that math just exists in our heads and that theorems weren't true until we discovered them?
I think I want to answer yes, though I'm not quite sure I'm getting the exact nuance of your post.

Suffice to say, I'm thinking about this from a falsifiable aka scientific mindset.

For example, should our set theory include the axiom of choice, or should it not? There is no particularly compelling reason one way or the other. In that respect, all of math is quite arbitrary.

Arguably, it's not entirely arbitrary. We /defined/ math so that it was a useful tool to formalize abstractions about the natural world.

If you want to talk about why the universe is sufficiently orderly that we could /define/ math so, then I will answer I don't know why.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:24:13 2011 No.2346450 >>2346304 Sounds good to me. Do you want to be my God?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:27:13 2011 No.2346456

>People are apparently so disgusted by Christians that they would rather believe in absurdities like nothingness evolving into somethingness, than believe in a first cause.
You're missing the point of most of the people in this thread. Most of us aren't saying that nothing came from something. What we are saying is that something (aka everything, the universe) has always existed without the intervention of any first causal agent.

>Don't compromise your intellect just to seem different from people you don't like.
Dont appeal my ego to further your argument.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:30:13 2011 No.2346463

>>2346456
>What we are saying is that something (aka everything, the universe) has always existed without the intervention of any first causal agent.
Well, no. I've been saying that I have no particularly compelling reason to choose between:

1- infinitely old universe
2- finitely old universe without a cause

They both seem equally plausible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:33:13 2011 No.2346471 >>2346463 Well its a personal choice since both are logically arguable and neither has any supporting evidence other than the existence of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:33:13 2011 No.2346472 >>2346456 The person I responded to was apparently saying that the universe came from nothing. And wtf, you're speaking on behalf of most the people in the thread? GTFO

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:36:13 2011 No.2346485

>>2346383
>Suffice to say, I'm thinking about this from a falsifiable aka scientific mindset.
Well, there's your problem. Math isn't science. In math we deal with provable truths. Something that can never exist in science.

>For example, should our set theory include the axiom of choice, or should it not? There is no particularly compelling reason one way or the other. In that respect, all of math is quite arbitrary.

The axioms are not what is the immutable truths of mathematics, obviously. The immutable truths of mathematics are the theorems that arise under the various axioms. The axioms we set are like the settings on a telescope defining what direction we're going to look in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:37:13 2011 No.2346491 >>2346463 Everything is equally plausible as long as it doesn't smell like "god", in which case it's off the table, right?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:39:13 2011 No.2346495

>>2346472
just these people:
>>2346046
>>2346029
>>2346161
>>2346160
>>2346148
>>2346143
>>2346143
>>2346121
>>2346101
>>2346101
>>2346092
>>2346092
>>2346093
>>2346089
>>2346089
>>2346072
>>2346064
>>2346064
>>2346064
>>2346060
And some more I got bored halfway through

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:41:13 2011 No.2346500 >>2346491 as long as it doesn't involve a timeless, immutable, inactive object or agent which paradoxically acts and creates the universe.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:44:13 2011 No.2346509

>>2346491
As I said else-thread, our options are:

1- ageless universe existing infinitely far into the past
2- finite-aged universe without a cause
3- finite-aged universe, cause was god, god is cause-less, time-less and immutable,

Sorry, 3 seems less plausible to me. Instead of one asspull: cause-less, we also get a couple more asspulls, time-less and immutable - whatever that means.

The third statement posits the existence of an extra thing compared to the second statement, which is equally if not more implausible than the second statement. Thus Occam's Razor dictates that that's very unlikely to be true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:50:13 2011 No.2346521 >>2346500 It doesn't paradoxically act. Even if it did, why would you prefer nothingness paradoxically evolving into somethingness or a paradoxically infinite causal chain over an immutable paradoxically acting?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:53:13 2011 No.2346528

>>2346521
>paradoxically evolving into somethingness
I don't see a paradox. Arguably it's inconsistent with everything that we've ever observed, but the beginning of the universe is a rather unique event so I don't like extrapolating to it from modern observation too carelessly.

>paradoxically infinite causal chain
I don't see the paradox.

>immutable paradoxically acting
Here I see the paradox. I don't understand what it means for an immutable thing to take a decision. For the natural world, when something takes a decision, it necessarily has to undergo a change. The very word "acting" implies time in some regard. "To act" means to move, or to otherwise manipulate the environment over time. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is still much less plausible than the other two. It's also an additional unneeded hypothesis.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:56:13 2011 No.2346531

>>2346509
>Sorry, 3 seems less plausible to me. Instead of one asspull: cause-less, we also get a couple more asspulls, time-less and immutable - whatever that means.
No timelessness and immutability are not "asspulls"; they are merely descriptive and follow logically from the train of thought.

#1 is the only one that consists of actual infinite numbers of entities, and so even if you didn't have to reject it from the paradoxes it raises, you'd have to reject it from Occam's Razor.

#2 posits that nothingness evolves into somethingness; nothingness being a state of non-existence and non-being... evolving. It is more than the abandonment of reason. It is the abandonment of sanity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 04:57:13 2011 No.2346533 >>2346528 Nothingness is the lack of anything. How can a lack of anything do something? It's pure silliness. The immutable thing doesn't make a decision. It is immutable.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:01:13 2011 No.2346541 >>2346533 > How can a lack of anything do something? See my post here >>2346304 Your definition of "nothing" is actually something, which is why it can't "do" anything. A true nothing has a lack of limitating physical laws.

>>	jfk Fri Jan 14 05:03:13 2011 No.2346544 I imagine it's symmetrical opposite.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:03:13 2011 No.2346545

>>2346533
>Nothingness is the lack of anything. How can a lack of anything do something? It's pure silliness.
>The immutable thing doesn't make a decision. It is immutable.

I think that something coming from nothing is just as silly as a timeless thing taking action. In fact, I think that a timeless think taking action is even more silly as it's a borderline inconsistent use of the English words, whereas something coming from nothing is merely against all known science.

So what sounds more plausible? At worst, the causeless universe and this god thing are equally plausible, and sometimes I think that the causeless universe is more plausible than this timeless acting thing.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:04:13 2011 No.2346547

>>2346531
>#1 is the only one that consists of actual infinite numbers of entities, and so even if you didn't have to reject it from the paradoxes it raises,
What paradoxes? I keep asking that, but you haven't delivered.

>you'd have to reject it from Occam's Razor.
Why? There are just two axioms, infinitely old universe, and the physical laws. That seems rather simple, much more simple than finite-age universe with an ageless, immutable thing which caused the universe and which can take actions even though it's timeless and immutable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:05:13 2011 No.2346548 AND FURTHERMORE I DONT SEE HOW A CAUSAL CHAIN IS A FUCKING PARADOX. /cruse control

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:08:13 2011 No.2346556 >>2346541 >A true nothing has a lack of limitating physical laws. LOLOL. It also has a lack of enabling physical laws.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:09:13 2011 No.2346558

>>2346531
>No timelessness and immutability are not "asspulls"; they are merely descriptive and follow logically from the train of thought.

Yes, you demand that everything with a beginning have a cause, then to solve your infinite regress you claim that there's something without a beginning. It's called specious reasoning. In colloquial terms, it's an asspull.

>>	jfk Fri Jan 14 05:10:13 2011 No.2346561 For the record, Satan isn't Gods symmetrical opposite. It's a value of God. (Lack of God).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:10:13 2011 No.2346564 >>2346545 And yet no one has posited a timeless thing taking action. An action is an event. Events are not timeless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:12:13 2011 No.2346571 >>2346558 How is the only non-paradoxical option "specious reasoning"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:12:13 2011 No.2346577 >>2346564 So, god caused the universe, but he didn't act to cause the universe. ... Right. This makes no fucking sense.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:14:13 2011 No.2346585

>>2346571
Specious reasoning is when you invoke the existence of something which formerly lacked all evidence in order to solve a problem, usually an artificial problem.

We remain unconvinced that an infinite causal chain implies paradoxes. Please elaborate.

Also, a causeless universe does not entail any paradoxes, no matter how much you wish it to be so. It is inconsistent with all known observations, but that doesn't make it paradoxical.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:17:13 2011 No.2346594

>>2346556
> It also has a lack of enabling physical laws.
Absolutely ANYTHING is possible within our universe... so long as it doesn't violate physical laws. Physical laws act more like restrictions than anything else, but I don't put much weight behind this line of reasoning.

The real mover behind my argument is the fact that everything leads back to nothing. A cause must have a cause must have a cause... and that which is not dictated by causal progression still has characteristics that have yet to be explained. For the sake of example, let's say God exists and is timeless. God still has characteristics. Why does THAT God exist instead of some other God that has characteristics that would have lead to the creation of some different universe?

Everything needs an explanation. Even if it is some cyclic loop where an action causes itself, it still has characteristics that need to be explained. It all leads back to nothing. There is no alternative. We are left with nothing but my proposed outlook on what "nothing" really is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:18:13 2011 No.2346598 >>2346548 google paradoxes of actual infinities It's not exactly a new subject.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:18:13 2011 No.2346600 >>2346594 I much prefer saying "I don't know", as an infinite non-cyclical causal chain still seems plausible, in which case we don't need to end the regression with nothing. We simply let the regression go to infinity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:19:13 2011 No.2346604 >>2346598 Sorry. Got to do better than that. First couple of google hits are random asshats posting in random forums.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:20:13 2011 No.2346607 >>2346577 You're thinking temporally.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:20:13 2011 No.2346614 >>2346604 Your alternative is me saying this: I don't have the patience to explain it to you right now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:21:13 2011 No.2346618 >>2346607 Yes. Because that's all we know. Anything else is an asspull, and as it's completely not understandable, you'll forgive me if I remain entirely unconvinced of something which I can't comprehend and is at face value inconsistent.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:22:13 2011 No.2346625

>>2346614
Ok. Then I'll simply state that there are no such real paradoxes. All you have is the hotel of infinite rooms, and variations on that, which isn't paradoxical, no matter how much you want it to be, unlike say the bag of all bags which don't contain themselves.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:23:13 2011 No.2346628

>>2346600
The fact that a point in time cannot be reached by the addition of a finite number of finite increments does not prove the infinities do not exist. Time is nothing more than another dimension like up and down. Time just happens to be unique in that causality only moves one way. Looking from the outside of the universe in, there is no beginning. All increments of time exist together as part of an whole, the universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:23:13 2011 No.2346629 >>2346585 "Specious reasoning" is reasoning that appears correct, but is actually incorrect. A deceptive argument. Concluding that the only possible alternative is the right alternative is neither of those things.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:24:13 2011 No.2346637 >>2346600 >as an infinite non-cyclical causal chain still seems plausible That requires explanation too. Why THAT chain in all its unique characteristics instead of some other causal chain. I argued this in the very post you linked to. :(

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:27:13 2011 No.2346642

>>2346637
I think that's a different kind of question.

The first kind of causality is simply established which event happened before which event.

The second is asking "Why did that event happen as opposed to that event?", which is a very different kind of question.

I think you're conflating these two very different things.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:29:13 2011 No.2346647

>>2346598
All I could find was Hilberts Hotel.

Which has nothing to do with an infinitely old universe, but the fallacies of conventional thinking when speaking of infinite objects existing at the same time.

So basically a causal chain still is not a paradox.

Your move.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:30:13 2011 No.2346650 >>2346642 I don't think they're very different. In either case things need justification for existing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:30:13 2011 No.2346651 >>2346647 Yeah, I mentioned the hotel here:>>2346625

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:32:13 2011 No.2346653

>>2346650
I think the god-side's argument is that everything that has a beginning must have a predecessor state of the universe, what they call "a cause".

That's a different argument than everything which exists must have an explanation.

Still, if we go that route, then I can still provide an infinite chain of explanations.
E_1 is the explanation for E_0
E_2 is the explanation for E_1
E_3 is the explanation for E_2
and so on.

I see no paradox here, nor do I see the requirement that there be "nothing" to terminate this regress.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:35:13 2011 No.2346663 >>2346651 But you do realize that it doesn't rule out infinite time. In fact is only shows conventional thinking does not apply to infinities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:37:13 2011 No.2346672 >>2346663 Of course. The hotel has no bearing on whether there can be an infinite causal chain. It's unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:38:13 2011 No.2346676 >>2346672 So a causal chain STILL isn't a paradox and we can all go to bed?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:39:13 2011 No.2346678 >>2346676 Sorry for you thinking that I implied that it was. I'm not the other asshat in this thread.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:42:13 2011 No.2346687

Depending if you go with string theory or quantum loop gravity theory you will either think this arguement retarded or briilliant because both theories have very different view on the universe beginning. This theory is based upon quantum loop gravity.

The universe began at a point at which space time curvature became less than infinite. 'Before' this time didnot exist. 'Before' the curvature of space time became less than infinite there was no 'before'.

For causality to occur the cause happens before the even, there was no before the big bang, so there is no cause for the big bang.

How long was the singularity there before hand? Well there was no time before so the only really description is infinitely and never, without time our laws of physics make no sense and causality breaks down as do many other laws.

The addition to this theory that some string theorists make is that a membrane hit a singularity and that singularity unfolded.

And some say that there was a big crunch before and before that. Awkward for several reasons, mostly heat death of the universe and secondly it is overly complex for no reason, BUT there is no reason why we arent the second or third or fourth iteration.

If you guys think this theory doesn't work and that I have failed to understand physics you need to stop reading 10th grade science books, they will only take you so far and simplify things no end.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:42:13 2011 No.2346691 >>2346678 damn tricky asshat, dodging the question by making you answer it.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:43:13 2011 No.2346693

>>2346642
I think we can avoid a fall into semantics by simplifying this topic by just evaluating the question I posed. Why would one causal loop exist and not another? That needs an explanation. One need not even bring the word causality into it.

To restate my answer to the question, the only option is that every possible causal loop exists. There is no reason why any one universe would exist instead of another (I include in the definition of universe both continuums and cycles). Why one would exist and not the infinite other possible universes cannot be explained by any means. I'm not saying we simply don't know, I'm saying that if one uses your "something can't come from nothing" mentality then nothing should exist at all. That cyclic universe you proposed is something.

Obviously the "something can't come from nothing" mentality is wrong. The only option is the one I proposed, that by this "nothing" we are referring too is the total lack of anything, including restrictions. That means everything that can exist does exist.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:44:13 2011 No.2346695

>>2346647
1. An infinite chain of causes is essentially the same thing as a circular chain of causes. (Or a circular chain is one example of an infinite chain of causes.) It is a well-known logical fallacy that an infinite or circular chain of proofs cannot prove anything. For example "3=2 because 3=2 because 3=2....ad infinitum" does not prove that 3=2. In the same way an infinite or circular chain of causes leaves an effect essentially uncaused... along with everything else in the chain. The entire chain is arbitrary.

2. If A is caused by B and B is caused by C, etc., B must already exist for A to exist; C must already exist for B to exist, and so on. If this chain is infinite, you will never arrive at anything that already exists. However far back you go, you have infinitely many things which much prexist the event. None of the events can exist.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:45:13 2011 No.2346699

>>2346693
>To restate my answer to the question, the only option is that every possible causal loop exists. There is no reason why any one universe would exist instead of another (I include in the definition of universe both continuums and cycles). Why one would exist and not the infinite other possible universes cannot be explained by any means. I'm not saying we simply don't know, I'm saying that if one uses your "something can't come from nothing" mentality then nothing should exist at all. That cyclic universe you proposed is something.

That's a nice conjecture entirely unsupported by evidence.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:47:13 2011 No.2346704

>>2346695
>1. An infinite chain of causes is essentially the same thing as a circular chain of causes. (Or a circular chain is one example of an infinite chain of causes.) It is a well-known logical fallacy that an infinite or circular chain of proofs cannot prove anything. For example "3=2 because 3=2 because 3=2....ad infinitum" does not prove that 3=2. In the same way an infinite or circular chain of causes leaves an effect essentially uncaused... along with everything else in the chain. The entire chain is arbitrary.

I don't see how an infinite chain is equivalent to a cyclical chain. Please explain.

>2. If A is caused by B and B is caused by C, etc., B must already exist for A to exist; C must already exist for B to exist, and so on. If this chain is infinite, you will never arrive at anything that already exists. However far back you go, you have infinitely many things which much prexist the event. None of the events can exist.

This is basically a bald assertion that an infinite amount of time cannot have elapsed. There's no deeper justification than that. It's basically equivalent to just saying that the universe can't be infinitely old. I see nothing compelling in that to prove that it did not happen, any more than I find Achielles and the Tortoise a compelling argument against the infinite divisibility of space. Both are apparent "paradoxes" of the same kind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:50:13 2011 No.2346710 >>2346691 Hmm? I never intended to claim that an infinite causality chain is paradoxical or impossible. I'm sorry if that's what you read. I think you misread or attributed some post to me which was not mine.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:50:13 2011 No.2346712

>>2346695
I hope you aren't trying to say infinite causal changes can't exist. There is no reason why they couldn't. The existence of the chain as a whole however does not explain why the chain exists. If THAT is what you are arguing then we are in agreement.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:51:13 2011 No.2346714

>1. An infinite chain of causes is essentially the same thing as a circular chain of causes. (Or a circular chain is one example of an infinite chain of causes.) It is a well-known logical fallacy that an infinite or circular chain of proofs cannot prove anything. For example "3=2 because 3=2 because 3=2....ad infinitum" does not prove that 3=2. In the same way an infinite or circular chain of causes leaves an effect essentially uncaused... along with everything else in the chain. The entire chain is arbitrary.
No I am referring to a literal chain of events which precede current ones which continues for infinity. There are no physical laws or empirical evidence which precludes this from occurring.

>2. If A is caused by B and B is caused by C, etc., B must already exist for A to exist; C must already exist for B to exist, and so on. If this chain is infinite, you will never arrive at anything that already exists. However far back you go, you have infinitely many things which much prexist the event. None of the events can exist.
Yes none of them exist anymore, but at a certain point in time they did. These events were all real and all had reprocussions causing new events.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:51:13 2011 No.2346715

>>2346687
Just because our dimension of time didn't exist before our universe existed doesn't imply that causality didn't exist or that other dimensions of time or metatime didn't exist. We have examples of causality not strictly following time anyway on very small scales, so I think it's wrong to get hung up on the association of causality and time. It correlates to some degree on large scales, but that doesn't mean that causality is dependent on time.

I don't know how to define causality, but I think of it as justification for existence. This "anything can happen unless there are laws of physics in place to restrict it" seems ridiculous to me. Talk about anthropomorphizing physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:55:13 2011 No.2346727 >>2346715 I don't know what causality means apart from time. Please define it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:56:13 2011 No.2346733

>>2346714
>No I am referring to a literal chain of events which precede current ones which continues for infinity. There are no physical laws or empirical evidence which precludes this from occurring.
Lol, no one's talking about physical laws preventing it. We're talking about logic. If you had a wormhole with a closed timelike curve, there would be no physical laws preventing a jelly donut eternally existing inside it. But do you really think it would?

>Yes none of them exist anymore, but at a certain point in time they did.
No that's just the point, no matter how far back you go, you never get to a point were anything can exist, because they require prior events which you can never go back far enough to justify their existence.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 05:56:13 2011 No.2346736 >>2346727 I think by cause he means explanation. We need an explanation for something even if it is timeless.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:57:13 2011 No.2346737

>>2346715
>I don't know how to define causality, but I think of it as justification for existence.
This is known as "begging the question". Instead of coming in with an open mind, you presuppose purpose, which then entails a creator.

Equally plausible is there is no purpose, no justification, and no creator.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:58:13 2011 No.2346741

>>2346733
>If you had a wormhole with a closed timelike curve, there would be no physical laws preventing a jelly donut eternally existing inside it. But do you really think it would?
But there is, standard entropy. That's a paradox because it's the same object going infinitely long in the time loop without suffering degradation.

We see no such similar problem with an infinitely non-cyclical long past.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 05:59:13 2011 No.2346747

>>2346733
>No that's just the point, no matter how far back you go, you never get to a point were anything can exist, because they require prior events which you can never go back far enough to justify their existence.
I don't know what this means in terms of falsifiable predictions.

It seems perfectly rational to think about an infinite number of things, happening in sequence, and we're somewhere infinitely far past the beginning.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:00:13 2011 No.2346751

>>2346733
>Lol, no one's talking about physical laws preventing it. We're talking about logic. If you had a wormhole with a closed timelike curve, there would be no physical laws preventing a jelly donut eternally existing inside it. But do you really think it would?
Can't say either way. But using logic while ignoring the very universe you are deriving your logic from seems... dickish.

>No that's just the point, no matter how far back you go, you never get to a point were anything can exist, because they require prior events which you can never go back far enough to justify their existence.
Thats what I have said before. There is nothing to rule out a causal chain. The only reason it appears as a paradox is because humans have a problem thinking in infinities. The universe doesn't require justification to exist. The further back you go there will always be causes prior to that point. THATS THE POINT OF AN INFINITE CAUSAL CHAIN.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:01:13 2011 No.2346753 >>2346727 Causality is the reason things happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:02:13 2011 No.2346756 >>2346751 I don't know about you, but I don't derive logic from physics.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:05:13 2011 No.2346765

>>2346747
>I don't know what this means in terms of falsifiable predictions.
Dude, WTF with your falsifiable predictions?

>It seems perfectly rational to think about an infinite number of things, happening in sequence, and we're somewhere infinitely far past the beginning.
Everywhere is infinitely far past the beginning. So why would we be here instead of somewhere else. Every place is the same amount of time from the beginning, which is a countable infinity. That's the fucking problem.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:05:13 2011 No.2346766

>>2346753
>Causality is the reason things happen.
I don't know what that means.

There's nuance of purpose in there, specifically the word "reason". However, as I just stated, this is begging the question. This presupposes that there is a reason, a purpose, a creator.

I argue that it's also plausible if there is no reason, no purpose, no creator.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:06:13 2011 No.2346769 >>2346756 So you have never based your reasoning on any observable thing?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:06:13 2011 No.2346770

>>2346765
>Dude, WTF with your falsifiable predictions?
Because we only have one way to determine objective truth about the real world, and that is science.

What you just said makes no sense from that perspective. I don't understand what observations I could make, what outcomes you are saying are impossible.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:07:13 2011 No.2346772

>>2346737
A purpose and a justification have nothing to do with each other.

I do come with an open mind, and follow wherever reason leads, even if it makes me change my thinking, which it often does. You seem to come with a dogma that anything but that which sounds anything like god is acceptable. It's fucking tiresome. I'm going to bed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:09:13 2011 No.2346779 >>2346770 >science >objective truth girlslaughing.pcx We're not fucking talking about science. Science stops at the big bang.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:09:13 2011 No.2346780

>>2346765
>Everywhere is infinitely far past the beginning. So why would we be here instead of somewhere else. Every place is the same amount of time from the beginning, which is a countable infinity. That's the fucking problem.
Because this is where our brains exist to fucking notice it. Without us the universe would probably go forward infinitly quickly for an infinite amount of time since there would be nobody to observe it.

Would you expect to observe the universe from a point in time where your brain does not exist?

Fucking egocentric arguments are so fucking retarded.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:10:13 2011 No.2346781

>>2346772
I said god is acceptable, numerous times.

I've been arguing that it isn't required by bald logic, or by science.

I have been close minded of other arguments that don't use pure logic or science though. I'm not going to apologize for that.

We have no evidence for god, and the god hypothesis offers us no falsifiable predictions, so there is no reason to believe in it. That's all any atheist has ever been saying.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 06:10:13 2011 No.2346782

>>2346769
Logic is something like A=A, or 1+1=2. Physics uses logic, as does everything, but logic does not use physics. In fact logic is completely separate from empirical observations. One may use logic to interpret observational data, but logic has nothing to do with observational data.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:10:13 2011 No.2346783 >>2346769 I reason about outwardly observable things from outwardly observable things. I reason about inwardly observable things from inwardly observable things.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:11:13 2011 No.2346784

>>2346765
>Everywhere is infinitely far past the beginning. So why would we be here instead of somewhere else. Every place is the same amount of time from the beginning, which is a countable infinity. That's the fucking problem.

I don't see the problem. For a given line segment, say a pencil, there's a countably infinite number of spots between any point on the pencil and the end of the pencil. Does that mean the pencil doesn't exist? No.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:13:13 2011 No.2346788 >>2346780 Our brains exist along a continuum, not just in this moment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:13:13 2011 No.2346791 >>2346783 >I reason about inwardly observable things from inwardly observable things. I don't know what this means. What is an inwardly observable thing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:14:13 2011 No.2346794 >>2346784 I don't see how that's similar. You can integrate over those countably many spots and get a finite length. You can't do that with an infinitely long pencil.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:15:13 2011 No.2346798 >>2346791 reason. logic. mathematics.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:16:13 2011 No.2346805

>>2346794
Ok, let me try this then.

>Everywhere is infinitely far past the beginning.
Indeed under this conjecture.

>So why would we be here instead of somewhere else.
Because we're here. What do you mean? I don't understand.

>Every place is the same amount of time from the beginning, which is a countable infinity.
Correct.

>That's the fucking problem.
I fail to see the problem. Yes I see that each spot is indistinguishable from each other spot, just like in space each spot is indistinguishable from each other spot. What's the problem?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:22:13 2011 No.2346818 >>2346788 Our BRAINS exist along a continuum, they are however constantly changing. Ourselves (AKA our ego, train of thought, soul ect...) only exist in the present due to biochemical reactions in the brain.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 06:25:13 2011 No.2346830

>>2346818
The self is typically defined as something that exists along a continuum. Myself as I exist today may have none of the particles, none of the physics characteristics, and none of the mental characteristics I have today; but because my body and mind can be tracked back through the continuum of the universe both dissimilar clumps of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen are called me.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:36:13 2011 No.2346865

>>2346830
No a body can be tracked. The atoms it intakes and excretes can be tracked. But an ego is an device used to gather and interpret data. The ego determines how we act, what we think, what we remember. We are our ego.

Also did your ego think about this as you typed it?
>Myself as I exist today may have none of the particles, none of the physics characteristics, and none of the mental characteristics I have today

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:39:13 2011 No.2346876 >>2346865 >No a body can be tracked. >Nobody exists. You are saying we shouldn't define self. You are being absurd.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:40:13 2011 No.2346880
File: 48 KB, 1280x1024, 1267798914965.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2345991
>what caused Big Bang

Nothing. The Big Bang does not need a cause. Why do you think your shitty understanding of cause and effect applies to everything?

>What created God?

God is a fictional character created by ancient peoples

\thread

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:45:13 2011 No.2346900

>>2346876
We shouldn't base our assessments of the universe on 'self' thats-for-fucking-sure.

Say you have a box of lego which you build a helicopter out of. You play with the helicopter and have some fun but then you get bored. So you deconstruct the helicopter into single blocks and put them back in the box.

Where is the helicopter?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:45:13 2011 No.2346901 >>2346880 I think he meant "explanation". WHY did the Big Bang happen, or WHY does God exist. Timeless entities still need an explanation.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Jan 14 06:48:13 2011 No.2346905

>>2346900
>We shouldn't base our assessments of the universe on 'self' thats-for-fucking-sure.
Are we just making random statements now?
I've never seen a blue monkey, that's-for-fucking-sure.

>Where is the helicopter?
It's dead. And you can't prove I was there when it happened.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:49:13 2011 No.2346911 >>2346905 Loltroll?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:53:13 2011 No.2346917 >>2346911 You aren't making any sense. You claimed that the self was defined as only existing instantaneously and I showed why that is incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:56:13 2011 No.2346921 >>2346818 In 4 dimensional spacetime, our brains an neurochemical reactions are not changing. They are a continuum. Come to think of it, from any perspective other than the uniquely human one within our own universe, they are... immutable.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 06:57:13 2011 No.2346922

>>2346917
No you spewed incomprehensible garbage like this:
>Myself as I exist today may have none of the particles, none of the physics characteristics, and none of the mental characteristics I have today
-I exist today
-I may not have any characteristics that I have at the time I have them
Therefore... that post makes no sense?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:00:13 2011 No.2346927 >>2346921 Except they have clear cause, beginning and ends and change frequently in/between.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:00:13 2011 No.2346929 ITT: People implying that humans can fully comprehend infinity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:03:13 2011 No.2346931 >>2346929 Also people pretending that since we cant comprehend infinity, it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:06:13 2011 No.2346935 >>2346931 Infinity exists, alright, you just have to be careful what you try to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:07:13 2011 No.2346937 >>2346927 They only change if you look at them 3-dimensionally in a moving frame of time. Looking at them 4-dimensionally, they don't change or have a beginning or end.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:10:13 2011 No.2346940 >>2346922 I apologize. I meant to type "back then". The definition of self always includes past forms of myself even though they may be completely dissimilar in characteristics of the present me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:12:13 2011 No.2346945 obviously god was created OBV

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:15:13 2011 No.2346948 File: 57 KB, 512x640, 1292662001246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread made me realize scientific dogma was much more dangerous than religious dogma

>>	Seer !fIsmERL7lE Fri Jan 14 07:16:13 2011 No.2346949 At some point one has to accept a failure of causation. The theist says, "my god is the thing that just exists." That seems like an arbitrary decision, though. The universe might just exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:19:13 2011 No.2346963 >>2346937 All models are wrong. Some are useful. Your application of 4d thinking is not.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:25:13 2011 No.2346983
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1270664214909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2346901
Allow me introduce you to basic reasoning!

>WHY did the Big Bang happen

You question is invalid. It is nonsensical. It is like asking if a cup of coffee is in love.....LMAO

When you ask "why does x ______", you are basically tryging to describe "x" (proceeses involved with x, etc) in terms of somthing else, "y" (that may be more intutive to you, or seem more fundemental).

So, "why's" only work in systems of knowledge with mutiple objects, "x" and "y". If my system only has one object, "x", All I can do is describe "x" in terms of itself. The question "why" becomes meaningless.

Condering the big bang, there is only one object/system, "x". There does not exist anything more fundemental or intutive, "y", such that I can describe "x in terms of y".

This shit is all related to Godel's incompletness theorems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:34:03 2011 No.2347020

>>2346901
>WHY does God exist

The concept of god was invented by primitive man. Whenever primitive man saw some shit he could not explain, he would just attribute it to magic/fairtales (god and religion).

In this sense man could still feel like he was smart, as he can't be blamed for not understaing magic.

Basically, the belief in god gave man an ego boost and more self-esteem, it made him feel more sure about himself, and less scared or relaity.

This need was crucial to early man, who's natural state is pretty much 100% terror and depression. Early man is always fighing to survive not being fucking eaten, and trying to find food. It is a very very harsh life, that is psychologically tolling for any human.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:39:13 2011 No.2347030 >>2346963 It's not even a fucking model. It's fucking reality. >>2346983 Nice religion you have there.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:50:13 2011 No.2347056 >>2347030 >Implying reality isn't a subjective model.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 07:51:13 2011 No.2347059
File: 21 KB, 300x450, 1267738154299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2346901
Let me indroducte you to basic world history!

>WHY does God exist

There is not, nor has there ever been any evidence for the existance of any sort of god. There is no reaon to believe that god exist, nor is logically sound to beleive in anything without anysort of proof/evidence.

However, just because there is no god, doesn't mean that concept is not needed. The concept of god was invented by primitive man for a very specific reason.

Whenever primitive man saw some shit he could not explain, he would just attribute it to magic/fairtales (god and religion). In this sense man could still feel like he was smart, as he can't be blamed for not understaing magic. God/magic is the universal cop-out, it allows an ignorant person to feel better about himself, as well as save face.

Basically, the belief in god gave man an ego boost and more self-esteem, it makes him feel more sure about himself, and less scared of reality. This need was crucial to early man, who's natural state is pretty much 100% terror and depression. Early man is always fighing to survive not being fucking eaten, and trying to find food.

Man needs to make sense out of the harsh world, as reality is psychologically tolling for any human. Belief in farytales, helps man cope.

There is a direct correlation between a fucked up life, and belief in god. The more your life is fucked up, the more you seek escape. This escape is usually expressed as religion/god.

sage sage Fri Jan 14 07:59:13 2011 No.2347077
File: 31 KB, 479x322, 609760760786078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2347030
>Doesn't know what a religion is

LMAO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

I guess you can't be blamed for shitty parenting.
If you really have trouble understaing basic words, there is help for you. Even with a learning disorder you can live a productive life.

http://www.adultlearning.vbschools.com/
http://www.adultlearningcenter.org/
http://www.myged.org/

Those are examples of places that cater to special people like you. I'm sure you could find a place near you. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:01:13 2011 No.2347079 File: 26 KB, 619x352, 127629679242bb2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347059 >>2346983 Thanks Anon

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:02:13 2011 No.2347082 File: 281 KB, 1101x618, 1267492597726.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347059

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:03:13 2011 No.2347084 >>2347059 Awesome.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:15:13 2011 No.2347109 >>2346295 Radioactive decay has a cause we just don't have enough knowledge of the variables to predict which will go when, but we know enough to determine half lifes

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:24:13 2011 No.2347128
File: 106 KB, 964x643, 1267275421977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2347059
>this

I would add that there are more modern/productive ways to escape from reality, and atain self-satisfaction/feel secure. We are no longer cave man, and shouldnt be thinking like them.

Modern alternatives for psychological escape. Examples: video games, the internet, books, art, movies, tv, 4chan......

Modern alternatives for the esteem-boast/secure feeling. Examples: science, math, philosophy, technology, basically anything that gives you a better understanding of the world around you....

It is a great feeling to know that modern tech, has excluded the need for me to stay up all night afraid of being eaten by fucking wolves.
It is no longer nesscary for me to believe that magic (god) will keep the wolves away.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:28:13 2011 No.2347136 >>2346715 like I said go read a bigger book, causality is just our perception of our dimension time. It's properties wouldnt function with other dimensions of time, meta-time? seriously..... are you over 12 or what?

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 08:47:13 2011 No.2347170
File: 40 KB, 430x562, n_14_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2346295

>What is the "cause" of nuclear radioactive decay?

The cause, reason and method, all all described by "The Least Action Principle"......DURRRR.

Dumbed down: The "possible" decay process minimized the difference between that which "is happening" and that which "could happen in the future", over all possible possibilities in in space-time. Because the a actual minimum was achieved the "possible" process, became physically true. If the minimum was not achieved the procees would not have happened.

Hope that makes sense. It is kinda hard to dumb that shit down.

The least action principle is fundemenatlly responsible in making "all that shit happen". Least action is a physical fact of the universe, and derived from mathematics (just like "pi" is derived from mathematics). Just like "pi", the "least action" has been confirmed experimentally as "true always". Ie: we have never found a example where it was violated (just like pi is always the same in euclidean geo).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 09:20:13 2011 No.2347239

I prefer something like this as an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis except I tend to only favor discrete systems, which means it's a bit more limited than that. Since our universe's laws of physics are still a bit specific about the geometry, thinking that all there is is just "this geometry" seems a bit limiting to me, hence why the "Ultimate Ensemble" theory seems more appealing. While a deist's god is not an impossibility, I find that the "Ultimate Ensemble" is simpler than the existence of a complex being which ultimately creates a system which is much simpler than itself (however, I don't dismiss it completly, as there's probably no way to tell the difference from an emulated universe and our physical one), it's also simpler than "only this specific geometry exists".

>>	Alpharius Fri Jan 14 09:21:13 2011 No.2347241 >caused >Big Bang Big Bang created causality

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 09:22:13 2011 No.2347245

>>2347136
Causality doesn't require our dimension of time, and on small scales does not adhere to our dimension of time. Causality works just as well with other dimensions of time or metatime or what have you. Note that causality is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. Physics makes no distinction between causes and effects.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 09:23:13 2011 No.2347252 File: 19 KB, 274x206, tears.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347059 See? Psychology is usefull, don't be so harsh on it all the time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 09:25:13 2011 No.2347258 >>2347170 Please do not confuse a useful model for a "physical fact of the universe". And please do not confuse pi, which is a mathematical truth, with either.

>>	jfk Fri Jan 14 10:08:13 2011 No.2347382 Anyone who believes the Big Bang doesn't need ignition is a retard. /thread

>>	jfk Fri Jan 14 10:12:13 2011 No.2347391 File: 200 KB, 480x424, b1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 10:16:13 2011 No.2347402 File: 63 KB, 353x500, 1267211566325.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347258 "Least action" is simply the "Cal of variations", which a mathematical truth in the same sense "pi" is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 10:19:13 2011 No.2347408 File: 57 KB, 956x640, 167275421988.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347059 >>2346983 EPIC WIN MAN HAS RETURNED TO /SCI/

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 10:25:13 2011 No.2347419

>>2347382
What "ignition" would that be? Just initial state + laws of universe. For example in a hypothetical string theory it could be an n-dimensional sphere of plank length (1) radius.

It wouldn't need any more "ignition" than the universe needs "ignition" for EVERY SINGLE MOMENT (PLANK TIME) OF TIME THAT PASSES. That is, the same process that fueled the big bang is also allowing you to move right now. What this process is, is pointless to discuss, as we have no way of accessing things outside of our universe, if they exist at all. If it makes your theistic cognitive dissonant mind sleep better at night, you could think that it's "God" that makes it tick.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 10:39:13 2011 No.2347442 File: 44 KB, 446x400, 128954773270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347170 >He applies classical mechanics to radioactive decay

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 12:06:13 2011 No.2347703 File: 70 KB, 471x316, He watches Australian TV.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2347442 >He thinks action applies only to classical mechanics >He think he has any position to mock others

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 12:11:13 2011 No.2347723

>>2347703
>He doesn't understand the difference between classical mechanics which extremizes the action and quantum mechanics which sticks it in an exponent inside a path integral. He thinks the things he learned in classical mechanics work just fine in quantum without any changes, which is convenient for him because it means he never has to learn anything new.

Anonymous Fri Jan 14 12:18:13 2011 No.2347760
File: 221 KB, 571x556, 1245256274265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2347723
>He thinks he can state one matter from one topic and thus he becomes all-knowing. He thinks I am not interested in learning new things. He think Anonymous is only one person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 17:20:13 2011 No.2349133 ACCEPT WE DON'T KNOW! ACCEPT IT! ACCEPT IT!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 17:22:13 2011 No.2349147 File: 8 KB, 182x195, a explaination 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2349133 >Get on board >See this theard ...What the fuck have you guys been doing while I was out?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 20:50:05 2011 No.2350128 tits

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 20:58:13 2011 No.2350142 >>2347419 bit shortsighted here.. it's not that unlikely that we will be able to probe past our "universe" in the future. If there actually is a multiverse that is, which seems pretty likely.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 21:15:13 2011 No.2350195 Why the fuck do I have this thread bookmarked?

>>	logicFTW Fri Jan 14 21:39:13 2011 No.2350264 File: 34 KB, 400x380, logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] its like asking "whats south of the southpole"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 21:45:13 2011 No.2350284 >>2350264 The south pole is itself by definition There is by definition nothing south of the south pole Your analogy is shit, mr. Logic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 23:34:13 2011 No.2350691 >>2350284 His analogy is awesome because at the south pole, DOWN is south of the south pole, being closer to the south pole of the magnetic core.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 23:41:13 2011 No.2350707 >What caused/created the Big Bang/God? >238 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view. I'm disappointed in you /sci/ ;_;

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 14 23:48:13 2011 No.2350730 This is an awesome troll. I really save this for future purposes.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 01:26:13 2011 No.2351023
File: 15 KB, 367x388, 1293168568205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The " Budding Theory". Which is basically a theory that comes from the parallel universes idea. The death (big freeze, expansion..etc.) of one universe creates another by the energy and matter being recycled. Probably where the universe implodes, gathers into one small area contained to extreme pressures. The energy is "recharged" or recycled somehow, and then explodes from the pressure (Big Bang), creating another universe. Forming from another Universe..
Budding Theory.

Anonymous Sat Jan 15 01:30:13 2011 No.2351030

The big bang was caused by the universe falling in on itself. The universe is a repeating cycle; the only reason we exist is because in this universe everything was right. After the next big bang there's very little chance that humans will exist again.

And for God, well that's the love that holds people together and nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 01:33:13 2011 No.2351042 A nonuniverse contains no laws, therefore a universe (or a god that creates that universe) may arise randomly out of the nothing, as do the laws of the new universe. The newly created laws "solidify" the universe and keep it working logically.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 01:38:13 2011 No.2351061 The Federal Reserve.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 15 01:46:13 2011 No.2351095 >>2351030 Very well put, anon. Very well put.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math