[QUOTE=sgman91;53186318]
It's a totally relevant scientific question. It needs an answer, even if we don't know of one. To say that it just exists inexplicably is no different, and provides even less explanatory power, than saying, "God did it."[/QUOTE]
It's an answer you can't find because it lies beyond what we can see, we'll never come up with a satisfying answer because if someone determines a root cause people will ask why [I]that[/I] happened, in a neverending cycle. Questions that have their answers lie within the scope of what we can see, will ever see, are better to spend one's time on, than trying to answer "where did the universe come from" to satisfy some human desire to understand why we exist. Time would be better spent in many other ventures, attempting to uncover the origin of the universe will almost certainly be a fruitless endeavor, and if fruit are found, they won't be very satisfying to us.
This feels like a Death Stranding ARG
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186325]And what if the answer can't be arrived at by scientific means as it operates on a logic that no longer exists in this universe? As the Big Bang may have created all the laws of this universe out of probabilistic chaos that then hardened over time into behaviors which resulted in our present natural law, how would you arrive at a logical answer if the true answer to your question might be something very much like 'Because purple was exactly 12 in that instantaneous moment'.
Preceding the Big Bang, after all, the very concept of 'particles' may not have existed. Nor 'matter', 'time', 'dimension'...
Thought experiment time. Let's presume that we have the capacity to create in an entirely new parallel (and empty) dimension an entirely new universe similar to our own. In this case, we build a 'bomb' made up out of extremely dense protons and detonate it. If the resulting new universe can't generate protons (as its laws do not allow for the creation of protons) and the act of the big bang instantaneously converted every single proton into electrons, how would anyone in that universe ever be able to discover how said universe was made -- as the thing which caused the thing to occur can't be created or observed?
Let's get even weirder. Let's presume we discovered that there was a singular word that, if spoken aloud, created a new universe in a new dimension spontaneously. How would said universe learn that its existence was due to that word uttered in a parallel dimension which caused its spontaneous and seemingly unprompted self-generation?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's a very hard, if not impossible question to answer, but that's a statement on our limitations, not on the illegitimacy of the question. It's a real, meaningful, scientific question to ask. The fact that things require explanations is one of the most fundamental tenets of science as a discipline.
As a side note, I'm not sure how widely help your belief on the question is held, anyway. There are lots of hypotheses being posited on what caused the big bang.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186379]Yes, it's a very hard, if not impossible question to answer, but that's a statement on our limitations, not on the illegitimacy of the question. It's a real, meaningful, scientific question to ask. The fact that things require explanations is one of the most fundamental tenets of science as a discipline.
As a side note, I'm not sure how widely help your belief on the question is held, anyway. There are lots of hypotheses being posited on what caused the big bang.[/QUOTE]
It's held very widely. We presume that there is a natural order to the universe and therefore expect that the Big Bang also must have occurred through that natural order -- however, given its primacy and our incomplete scientific understanding, the only constant we can hold to at this time is that anything is possible: very much so including that which is presently impossible. After all, seemingly, the Big Bang itself is an 'impossible event' - something we could not replicate this day if we gathered all the energy and matter in the cosmos we're aware of and packed it all back in to try and recreate it.
Things may require explanations but there may exist things which can't be explained with our understanding of present-day physics as in order for us to explain them it would require that the physics/laws of the world 'before the Big Bang' are the same physics/laws as there is presently - which may not at all be the case. If Protons and Electrons and so forth did not exist before the Big Bang (or even stranger worlds such as a universe made entirely of permanently-unstable-quarks/dark energy interactions - devoid of matter or dimension) then it may be an unsolvable question - and that would be difficult to prove as we'd have to see 'before the Big Bang' in order to see whether they did or didn't -- or discover a way to replicate the event itself on a smaller scale.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186399]It's held very widely. We presume that there is a natural order to the universe and therefore expect that the Big Bang also must have occurred through that natural order -- however, given its primacy and our incomplete scientific understanding, the only constant we can hold to at this time is that anything is possible: very much so including that which is presently impossible.
Things may require explanations but there may exist things which can't be explained with our understanding of present-day physics as in order for us to explain them it would require that the physics of the Big Bang are the same physics as there is presently - which may not at all be the case.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I don't disagree with that, but, again, that doesn't make the question illegitimate. Something being [I]really hard[/I] doesn't exempt it from inquiry.
Either there's some cause or it is inexplicable, that no answer exists to the question. If it's inexplicable, then that's no different from magic. That would mean that all the complexity and rationality of the universe is totally and completely arbitrary. It would also mean that things popping into existence is a normal thing that we ought to expect. If a universe can do it, then why not any number of other things?
Now, I don't think that's what you're saying, but the only alternative is that there is a rational cause. Maybe this cause is impossible to find because it's beyond our ability to measure, but that a limitation of science. If there's a cause, then the answer is out there, whether we can find it or not.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186427]Sure, I don't disagree with that, but, again, that doesn't make the question illegitimate. Something being [I]really hard[/I] doesn't exempt it from inquiry.[/quote]
If something proves impossible to know as it requires concepts which do not exist, that does necessarily exempt it from inquiry as it is an exercise in futility to measure or even logically order. What I mean by this is it may not be 'very hard' but actually unprovable.
[quote]Either there's some cause or it is inexplicable, that no answer exists to the question. If it's inexplicable, then that's no different from magic. That would mean that all the complexity and rationality of the universe is totally and completely arbitrary. It would also mean that things popping into existence is a normal thing that we ought to expect. If a universe can do it, then why not any number of other things?[/quote]
Not true. As our universe seems otherwise stable but for the big bang, what could be true is that the laws of the universe may change under certain conditions - but given what we're capable of observing, those conditions do not exist in this universe any more.
Your presumptions presume that 'once unstable, always unstable' where, in fact, what was once incredibly chaotic (so far as we can tell) has now become stable as the factor which made it unstable to begin with no longer exists in the universe (otherwise, presumably, we would be observing other big bangs - or evidence of past big bangs).
[quote]Now, I don't think that's what you're saying, but the only alternative is that there is a rational cause. Maybe this cause is impossible to find because it's beyond our ability to measure, but that a limitation of science. If there's a cause, then the answer is out there, whether we can find it or not.[/QUOTE]
Rational does not mean provable. It is not a limitation of science but a limitation of laws that may preclude it. The 'answer' may have exited the universe at the very moment of its beginning - taking all trace and evidence of its existence with it and not leaving even an 'absence' to trail it.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186445]If something proves impossible, that does necessarily exempt it from inquiry as it is an exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]
You can't tell that something is impossible unless you've established some a priori deductive proof for it (and if we're talking about non-rationality, then the entire idea of "impossibility" is nonsensical.). What you really seem to be saying is that it's really hard, and seems like it could be impossible. That's very different from knowing that it's impossible. Imagine a stone age man thinking about going to the moon. I'm sure he would have said it's impossible (at least non-supernaturally impossible).
[QUOTE]Not true. As our universe seems otherwise stable but for the big bang, what could be true is that the laws of the universe may change under certain conditions - but given what we're capable of observing, those conditions do not exist in this universe any more.
Your presumptions presume that 'once unstable, always unstable' where, in fact, what was once incredibly chaotic (so far as we can tell) has now become stable as the factor which made it unstable to begin with no longer exists in the universe (otherwise, presumably, we would be observing other big bangs - or evidence of past big bangs).[/QUOTE]
You're skipping a step here by starting with something that has the property of stability or instability. How did that system get there at all? That's the question. If there's absolutely nothing, in the most total sense of the word, and then there's something, whether that be a quantum field, a super dense point of energy, or any other [I]something[/I], and it has zero cause, then you can't make predictions about it. It just happened. It wasn't caused by some "unstable" system because it wasn't caused at all. If that sort of totally arbitrary existence is possible, then absolutely anything is literally possible. Rationality doesn't even apply.
[editline]8th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186445]Rational does not mean provable. It is not a limitation of science but a limitation of laws that may preclude it. The 'answer' may have exited the universe at the very moment of its beginning - taking all trace and evidence of its existence with it and not leaving even an 'absence' to trail it.[/QUOTE]
The difference between having a rational cause and not is extremely meaningful, even if that cause isn't provable.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186463]You can't tell that something is impossible unless you've established some a priori deductive proof for it. What you really seem to be saying is that it's really hard, and seems like it could be impossible. That's very different from know that it's impossible. Imagine a stone age man thinking about going to the moon. I'm sure he would have says it's impossible (at least non-supernaturally impossible).[/quote]
Yes, but that's the problem I'm taking with your 'that just means it's very hard'. For instance, presume that there was once a law that stated that for every movement of a proton in the universe, all quarks in the universe thereby changed what position they were in - or that the passage of time shifted all elemental particles around by category rather than by energy and so forth. Such things would be impossible to prove in our universe as nothing backs that such behavior even can exist nor would be capable of leading us to understand that it once existed.
[quote]You're skipping a step here by starting with something that has the property of stability or instability. How did that system get there at all? That's the question. If there's absolutely nothing, in the most total sense of the word, and then there's something, whether that be a quantum field, a super dense point of energy, or any other [I]something[/I], and it has zero cause, then you can't make predictions about it. It just happened. It wasn't caused by some "unstable" system because it wasn't caused at all.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that at the formative moments of the universe, what may have existed was so fundamental that there didn't exist any rules we would recognize -- that the rules were created as a side effect of the interactions between particles which were created, then, in that moment that may not have existed beforehand or came from particles which no longer exist now whose existence relied on particular universal behaviors which no longer apply (for instance they required a universe wherein there was no such thing as dimensionality). In a universe so new that every form of matter hasn't even had a chance to exist or cool, the very nature of that universe may change depending on what direction a particular quark was pointing at the moment a particle impacted another.
Also, the presently understood expectation is that the Big Bang didn't happen at a 'point in space'. It happened everywhere, simultaneously, and then every particle and waveform in it expanded in every direction. So it'd be less a 'dense point of energy' and more 'suddenly the universe was full of energy' and/or 'the universe, already full of energy, then began to expand'.
As a 'for instance': We could discover that there's no provable explanation for the origin of the energy observable in the Big Bang whereas the truth of that could be that, before the Big Bang, energy and matter [I]could[/I] be created where that is no longer true - or at least we have never observed or been able to discover the means to do so - as the conditions that allowed matter/energy to be created are no longer present in the universe, which is what caused the Big Bang to occur.
[quote]The difference between having a rational cause and not is extremely meaningful, even if that cause isn't provable.[/quote]
True, but in either case it is little but madness as there is no evidence to support your seeming rationality. Rationality without a foundation that rests on logic is gibberish, even if well-intentioned and well-researched, and all logic - no matter how basic - requires evidence to back it.
I don't agree with the point of view that since scientific methods and models are imperfect and we don't know everything we must assume that "anything" is possible. There is absolutely nothing that would suggest to us that the laws of mathematics or logic could ever be significantly different, or even allow us to predict what would it look like if they were. Even if time itself did not exist before the big bang, it wouldn't matter since time itself isn't necessary for rules and laws of physics to exist. There would still be clear and logical rules as to why the big bang and the world happened they way they had, even if we don't know the math for this just yet.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;53186517]I don't agree with the point of view that since scientific methods and models are imperfect and we don't know everything we must assume that "anything" is possible. There is absolutely nothing that would suggest to us that the laws of mathematics or logic could ever be significantly different, or even allow us to predict what would it look like if they were. Even if time itself did not exist before the big bang, it wouldn't matter since time itself isn't necessary for rules and laws of physics to exist. There would still be clear and logical rules as to why the big bang and the world happened they way they had, even if we don't know the math for this just yet.[/QUOTE]
That we can't yet fashion a Theory of Everything points that our understanding is incomplete; the reason for this may be that our present understanding produces reliable results but is nonetheless flawed/missing vital logic. We have very large holes in our understanding of the universe at this time and that may result in very significant departures.
Merely learning the actual reasoning/mechanism behind gravitational force may change how we see the universe entirely - prompting a need to throw all our existing models out in order to properly account for it - and that is but one thing we've yet to decipher of many things.
If time did not exist it would matter as it would require us to fashion a new model of the universe itself in order to understand the 'why' of the big bang - as that universe would not match our own.
e: Regarding 'the universe demands clear and logical rules' - I don't think anyone can prove that to be the case at this time. What may have caused the big bang may seem, to us, chaos as it may operate on entirely different sorts of logic, given that the universe at that time was a very different sort of place.
[QUOTE]As a 'for instance': We could discover that there's no provable explanation for the origin of the energy observable in the Big Bang whereas the truth of that could be that, before the Big Bang, energy and matter could be created where that is no longer true - or at least we have never observed or been able to discover the means to do so.[/QUOTE]
I really think this is where the problem with your argument lies. You're still starting with a rational system of laws, albeit laws that can change. Your example, like matter and energy being able to be created, would have been some sort of law that existed at that time, but that that law no longer exists. So that we shouldn't expect it to happen anymore. That may be an explanation for how it could have happened, but it inherently pushes the question back: how did those laws get there in the first place? Why were they like that instead of some other way? A set of laws that change as necessary, seemingly in such a way to create a rational universe, would almost seem like you're positing an intelligence.
That is very different from saying that matter and energy just popped into existence inexplicably, that there was no reason, or law, or explanation, or anything that could have possibly predicted them coming into existence. If this is the case, then there's no reason it couldn't happen today because there was no "change" in the system. There was no system that cause it at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186539]I really think this is where the problem with your argument lies. You're still starting with a rational system of laws, albeit laws that can change. Your example, like matter and energy being able to be created, would have been some sort of law that existed at that time, but that that law no longer exists. So that we shouldn't expect it to happen anymore. That may be an explanation for how it could have happened, but it inherently pushes the question back: how did those laws get there in the first place? Why were they like that instead of some other way? A set of laws that change as necessary, seemingly in such a way to create a rational universe, would almost seem like you're positing an intelligence.
That is very different from saying that matter and energy just popped into existence inexplicably, that there was no reason, or law, or explanation, or anything that could have possibly predicted them coming into existence. If this is the case, then there's no reason it couldn't happen today because there was no "change" in the system. There was no system that cause it at all.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm not saying that the universe suddenly 'decided to be' (though that could I suppose be possible).
What I'm saying is that what caused our universe to become what it is may not be explainable as the explanation for it would require us to understand things which no longer exist and for which there are no clues to prove their existence. You may wish to know why matter/energy was allowed to be created in the 'time before time' but the reason for why it was no longer exists anywhere nor left evidence - and so it would be a question with no answer (or to be incredibly accurate a question we can't truly answer even if we guessed it correctly).
Such a prior state of our universe would be rational, given its conditions and parameters, but nonetheless would be one we're incapable of understanding. Even more problematic would be proving 'how the prior universe came to be in the state it was before the big bang' as that requires evidence far beyond 'the veil' and into a state that we do not even neighbor - and if there was a prior condition before that and before that and before that...
All I'm saying is that even, optimistically, if we do accurately decipher the causes and effects of the Big Bang(s) [or whatever other 'prior universe-spanning game-changing events' occurred in sequence before it, assuming such things as 'a sequence of events' even existed] we may still be no closer to understanding the 'primordial nature' of our universe.
After all, in the true beginning of all things, there may not have even been a beginning; nor particles, energy, matter, mass, time, dimension, magnetism, polarity, and so forth. The concept of 'discrete elements/objects' may not have even existed. Understanding such an alien world may be beyond our ability to rationalize.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186552]Oh, I'm not saying that the universe suddenly 'decided to be' (though that could I suppose be possible).
What I'm saying is that what caused our universe to become what it is may not be explainable as the explanation for it would require us to understand things which no longer exist and for which there are no clues to prove their existence. You may wish to know why matter/energy was allowed to be created in the 'time before time' but the reason for why it was no longer exists anywhere nor left evidence - and so it would be a question with no answer (or to be incredibly accurate a question we can't truly answer even if we guessed it correctly).
Such a prior state of our universe would be rational, given its conditions and parameters, but nonetheless would be one we're incapable of understanding. Even more problematic would be proving 'how the prior universe came to be in the state it was before the big bang' as that requires evidence far beyond 'the veil' and into a state that we do not even neighbor - and if there was a prior condition before that and before that and before that...
All I'm saying is that even, optimistically, if we do accurately decipher the causes and effects of the Big Bang(s) [or whatever other 'prior universe-spanning game-changing events' occurred in sequence before it, assuming such things as 'a sequence of events' even existed] we may still be no closer to understanding the 'primordial nature' of our universe.[/QUOTE]
So, just to clarify, do you think that some system of laws, whatever their form, would be rationally necessary by nature? If so, how is that meaningfully different from positing that some god is rationally necessary by nature?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186565]So, just to clarify, do you think that some system of laws, whatever their form, just existed inexplicably?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that the fundamental laws of the universe that we live in now may be completely different to the fundamental laws of the universe then, that they may have fundamentally changed in the event that was the Big Bang. And, if that is how it truly was, we may be incapable of understanding such a universe as it might operate on utterly alien logic - thus making it all-but-impossible to truly rationalize 'how the Big Bang occurred' as we'd lack the essential understanding of how the universe prior to the Big Bang operated.
[quote]If so, how is that meaningfully different from positing that some god is rationally necessary by nature?[/quote]
Why would it be rationally necessary? If the laws of the universe are determined by what exists in the universe no God needs exist for the laws of it to change from time to time should the entirety of said universe change due to particular universe-spanning events.
If what exists in our universe now is not what existed in the universe prior to the Big Bang then, if the above is true, we would not be able to rationalize said universe as it would operate on logic that is alien and/or contrary to our existing universe as it would rest on things that may or may not even exist in this universe.
e: As a supposition, let's say there is an extremely infrequent chance for the introduction of a new element into existence - note I don't mean something like Plutonium, I mean something as fundamental as 'time'. We have never observed such a thing nor have any evidence to suggest that such a thing firstly has occurred nor is even possible beyond the Big Bang having occurred everywhere simultaneously, which is a thing that does not appear to be mimicked anywhere else in nature. Nonetheless, the system has become 'stabilized' after the introduction of a new element; as we lack the ability to tell whether it will happen again it's difficult to call it anything but stable seeing as we've observed no discrepancies in the laws of the observable universe so far.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186575]Why would it be rationally necessary? If the laws of the universe are determined by [B]what exists in the universe[/B] no God needs exist for the laws of it to change from time to time should the entirety of said universe change due to particular universe-spanning events.[/QUOTE]
Right, but what is that thing that exists in the universe, and does it require an explanation? If the laws, themselves, are caused by some other thing, then how did that other thing get there? Either you eventually get to something that is totally arbitrary, or you get to something that is rationally necessary.
One theory I've always loved is the concept of there being multiple universes, all expanding at their own rates and the cause of the big bang that made our universe, is the combination of multiple other universes compacting together via collision and gravity finally beating their expansion.
Space is essentially infinite with dark matter "filling" it, but if the big bang happened for us, what is there to say its not happened before and multiple times. It would explain a hell of a lot of things but at the same time, it'd take some unimaginable extreme force to cause a universe to stop expanding and compact down, so the idea of having universes collide doesn't really sound that far fetched, its essentially the same as what happens with galaxies except it'll take [I]even longer.[/I]
[QUOTE=Reagy;53186645]One theory I've always loved is the concept of there being multiple universes, all expanding at their own rates and the cause of the big bang that made our universe, is the combination of multiple other universes compacting together via collision and gravity finally beating their expansion.
Space is essentially infinite with dark matter "filling" it, but if the big bang happened for us, what is there to say its happened before and multiple times. It would explain a hell of a lot of things but at the same time, it'd take some unimaginable extreme force to cause a universe to stop expanding and compact down, so the idea of having universes collide doesn't really sound that far fetched, its essentially the same as what happens with galaxies except it'll take [I]even longer.[/I][/QUOTE]
If universes are caused by other universes colliding, then how did the first one get there?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186648]If universes are caused by other universes colliding, then how did the first one get there?[/QUOTE]
And that is where the theory falls apart, there is no answer to it, but its still a nice concept.
Somewhere, somehow, it all started, and its just going to be something we'll likely never understand in our timespan.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186648]If universes are caused by other universes colliding, then how did the first one get there?[/QUOTE]
I would pose the same question of a god though
The question of the prime mover, is in my opinion, just a fun thought experiment and is fundamentally unknowable.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186641]Right, but what is that thing that exists in the universe, and does it require an explanation? If the laws, themselves, are caused by some other thing, then how did that other thing get there? Either you eventually get to something that is totally arbitrary, or you get to something that is rationally necessary.[/QUOTE]
That's, again, a question that may have an answer but is an answer we'll never be able to state with evidence to back it. Such a thing is neither arbitrary or 'rationally necessary' as it simply exists in a hole of our ability to observe and may have not universally applied to all things to begin with, which would be a further alien concept to our universe as we understand it.
We can only observe that which exists in our universe, after all, and those observations are how we might try to explain those things. If the things we'd like to explain require concepts which we can't conceive of and would never observe than they are things that may be rationally necessary and are nonetheless things we must state arbitrarily as we could provide no evidence or reasoning beyond a simple observation that 'deductive logic states this must be how it is' despite having no provable evidence or even experimental lab logic to prove that said logic is correct to how it would be as it is something that we can neither accurately predict or simulate given it has no 'like' in our universe.
As a for instance: At some point in the far past the concept of 'matter' did not exist. But what did exist is Kepelstein and 933 - and when the two things interacted it caused a radical shift in the universe, permitting the first instance of matter. You might wonder 'well what is Kepelstein' and the answer might be 'Negative 933' and then you might ask 'well what is 933' and might get the response of '##04944@#@#" and so on. If nothing 'links back' to something you can understand, analyze, or observe you'd be incapable of understanding how it all fits together or works with itself.
'What caused matter to be possible' is a question we are unlikely to ever be able to explain - but nonetheless is something we can observe. Observing why our universe exists in the configuration it is presently is a question we may neither be able to observe or explain as it relies on interactions that are simply beyond us -- perhaps not because we could not logically or rationally understand it but perhaps instead because those interactions do not exist in our nature now and are beyond our ability to imagine as it would require knowledge of other things in order to even arrive at that supposition, those things having long since been phased out of existence.
To wit: You can only ask 'why' so long until you find something that we can't explain due to either lack of evidence or provable logic. If you encounter '[Why]' as an answer to 'Why?' then you have arrived at a point similar to what I'm describing above - where you are certain there is an answer but the foundation of that answer is information that exists in a place utterly alien to you with nothing to attach to it to add context.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53186660]I would pose the same question of a god though
The question of the prime mover, is in my opinion, just a fun thought experiment and is fundamentally unknowable.[/QUOTE]
That's why I asked Firgof Umbra if his postulated 'something' is rationally necessary. If it is, if the naturalistic and scientific answer, is to posit some rationally necessary thing, then they're really not in much of a different spot than the theist. Both are positing a rationally necessary thing. The question, if we are to discuss it, would be which has more explanatory power.
The only other alternative that I can think of would be a totally arbitrary existence, that there is no prime mover, but that existence itself is arbitrary. It can start and end at any point at all just because. While this would answer the question, it would also throw rationality out the window.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186700]That's why I asked Firgof Umbra if his postulated 'something' is rationally necessary. If it is, if the naturalistic and scientific answer, is to posit some rationally necessary thing, then they're really not in much of a different spot than the theist. Both are positing a rationally necessary thing. The question, if we are to discuss it, would be which has more explanatory power.
The only other alternative that I can think of would be a totally arbitrary existence, that there is no prime mover, but that existence itself is arbitrary. It can start and end at any point at all just because. While this would answer the question, it would also throw rationality out the window.[/QUOTE]
I would say that our assuming that absolutely everything that has ever happened has happened rationally is presuming a lot of the universe when we only know so little about it. There may in fact be on the extraordinarily micro scale, in foundational building blocks layers and layers deeper than the ones we're aware of now, a degree of actual arbitrariness - arbitration not through some 'omnipresent divine figure' but rather through utterly random chance with no visible external actor. It may be that there is some fundamental 'chaos factor' in the universe that, occasionally, surfaces - but is kept in check by the things surrounding it not also being 'that chaos factor'.
If such a thing were to change the universe would not end - it would merely radically change; which is neither fully arbitrary nor fully rational. The Big Bang might be an example of such an event - where all that was by completely infinitesimally small chance was for but an instant all aligned.
"Neither fully arbitrary nor fully rational" already is a part of theoretical physics (read: quantum mechanics) when you drill down to the layers beneath Quarks - where there still exist mechanisms that interact between particles through means we can't seem to rationalize but nonetheless can reliably observe. Deducing the total nature of our existence would be to be capable of rationalizing anything and everything -- including being able to predict both the future and the past with perfect accuracy. I'm not sure that's possible if the laws themselves are susceptible to extraordinarily infrequent change.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186724]I would say that our assuming that absolutely everything that has ever happened has happened rationally is presuming a lot of the universe when we only know so little about it. There may in fact be on the extraordinarily micro scale, in foundational building blocks layers and layers deeper than the ones we're aware of now, a degree of actual arbitrariness - arbitration not through some 'omnipresent divine figure' but rather through utterly random chance with no visible external actor. It may be that there is some fundamental 'chaos factor' in the universe that, occasionally, surfaces - but is kept in check by the things surrounding it not also being 'that chaos factor'.
If such a thing were to change the universe would not end - it would merely radically change; which is neither fully arbitrary nor fully rational.
"Neither fully arbitrary nor fully rational" already is a part of theoretical physics when you drill down to the layers beneath Quarks - where there still exist mechanisms that interact between particles through means we can't seem to rationalize but nonetheless can reliably observe. Deducing the total nature of our existence would be to be capable of rationalizing anything and everything - and I'm not sure that's possible if the laws themselves are susceptible to extraordinarily infrequent change.[/QUOTE]
See, you can't predict a truly arbitrary thing. That would make it non-arbitrary. To say that there's a "chaos factor" that plays a role here and there is to put boundaries and rules around something that, by definition, doesn't have any rules attached to it. Let's say that energy could be created entirely arbitrarily. That would mean that it's equally likely for a single photon worth of energy and a an entire universe of energy being created all the time (or anything else, for that matter). To say, "No, no, only photons can be created arbitrarily," is to make it no longer arbitrary. You're still saying that there's a strict rule being observed, it's just not a rule about the time or method of how it's being created. The rule is on the amount that can be created.
The quantum laws that you're referencing still follow rational rules. They follow probability distributions. It's a different kind of rule than what we're used to, but rationally consistent rules are still there.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186752]See, you can't predict a truly arbitrary thing. That would make it non-arbitrary. To say that there's a "chaos factor" that plays a role here and there is to put boundaries and rules around something that, by definition, doesn't have any rules attached to it. Let's say that energy could be created arbitrarily. That would mean that it's equally likely for a single photon worth of energy and a an entire universe of energy being created all the time (or anything else, for that matter).
The quantum laws that you're referencing still follow rational rules. They follow probability distributions.[/QUOTE]
Probability distributions aren't truly arbitrary - but they're also not truly rational either. That's the sort of thing I'm speaking of.
If energy can be created under the following conditions:
(a) An infinitely crowded cloud of pure energy (say nothing but electrons)
(b) The spin of every particle within that cloud was exactly the same
(c) Every quantum particle 'rolls a 20' at the exact same time
Then we would not observe it likely, ever, in our universe (aside from the potential Big Bang event which may have satisfied all those conditions and may have actually only generated a small amount of energy, but enough to cause the uniform crowd to be disrupted and therefore begin to expand where it may before have been kept together through some means that was disrupted). That does not mean it can't be done - but it also doesn't mean it's 'equally likely' for the amount of energy that was created to be anything. There may be also rules for how much energy was generated - but we'd be incapable of determining those rules as we can't make energy creation occur to begin with in our universe by those rules -- as the primary condition simply can't be satisfied in our present universe.
[quote]It's a different kind of rule than what we're used to, but rationally consistent rules are still there.[/quote]
They are rationally consistent -- but arbitrary nonetheless.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186770]Probability distributions aren't truly arbitrary - but they're also not truly rational either. That's the sort of thing I'm speaking of.
If energy can be created under the following conditions:
(a) An infinitely crowded cloud of energy
(b) The spin of every particle within that cloud was exactly the same
(c) Every quantum particle 'rolls a 20' at the exact same time
Then we would not observe it likely, ever, in our universe. That does not mean it can't be done - but it also doesn't mean it's 'equally likely' for the amount of energy that was created to be anything. There may be also rules for how much energy was generated - but we'd be incapable of determining those rules as we can't make energy creation occur to begin with in our universe by those rules -- as the primary condition simply can't be satisfied in our present universe.[/QUOTE]
... but where did that set of rules come from? That's my question. The most basic thing, whether that be a set of rules or whether that be some sort of god, is either totally and completely arbitrary (it exists due to nothing what-so-ever, not even some arcane rule), or it's logically necessary. I don't see any alternative.
[editline]8th March 2018[/editline]
By the way, the probability distributions of quantum mechanics are rational (they aren't inherently contradictory). They just follow different premises than what we're used to.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186777]... but where did that set of rules come from? That's my question. The most basic thing, whether that be a set of rules or whether that be some sort of god, is either totally and completely arbitrary (it exists due to nothing what-so-ever, not even some arcane rule), or it's logically necessary. I don't see any alternative.
[editline]8th March 2018[/editline]
By the way, probability distributions are rational (they aren't inherently contradictory). They just follow different premises than what we're used to.[/QUOTE]
My question to you, then, to assist you in seeing my point is: Where did the set of rules that tells those particles what probability distribution set they're working with come from? And where did the rules that set up the distribution come from? And where did that come from? And so forth. It lies 'beyond our ability to observe' at present - where it may in fact remain unless we find ways to see beyond even that level of obfuscation.
To your first question: Perhaps it came from the universe prior to that being a gluon soup that decayed into being a plasma-quark cloud. My point is: Even if there is a perfectly rational answer to your question, you'd be incapable of determining it as it would be 'beyond your ability to deduce it' if the laws of the universe are not permanent or constant.
If we have probability guiding the 'invisible hand' at our lowest layers, then we could say that in fact the universe may be neither totally arbitrary or follow logical necessity in a consistent basis. The Universe need not (and in fact may not) conform to your expectations of it 'having to be purely one or the other' when we do not know what composes the totality of it is what I'm attempting to show you here. It may even be purely logical for extremely long periods of cosmological time and then momentarily chaotic.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53186788]My question to you, then, to assist you in seeing my point is: Where did the set of rules that tells those particles what probability distribution set they're working with come from? And where did the rules that set up the distribution come from? And where did that come from? And so forth. It lies 'beyond our ability to observe' at present - where it may in fact remain unless we find ways to see beyond even that level of obfuscation.[/QUOTE]
I mean, you're just restating my question. I don't quite get how that clarifies anything. You seem to be saying that nothing needs to be either totally arbitrary or logically necessary, but I don't see that you've offered any alternative. Whether we can know what it is is a separate question.
I'm pushing this point because it's relevant to a consistent worldview. If you're OK with things being totally arbitrary, then that ought to change the way you see the world. Things do not need explanations because unexplained happenings are totally possible. To limit that to only the beginning would be to put rules onto something totally arbitrary, therefore making it no longer arbitrary. You would then need to account for those rules controlling it, restarting the question.
[QUOTE]To your first question: Perhaps it came from the universe prior to that being a gluon soup that decayed into being a plasma-quark cloud.[/QUOTE]
When you say "it came" I have to assume you mean it came inexplicably, in a totally arbitrary fashion. Am I correct? I don't want to put words into your mouth.
[QUOTE]If we have probability guiding the 'invisible hand' at our lowest layers, then we could say that in fact the universe may be neither totally arbitrary or follow logical necessity in a consistent basis. The Universe need not (and in fact may not) conform to your expectations of it 'having to be purely one or the other' when we do not know what composes the totality of it is what I'm attempting to show you here. It may even be purely logical for extremely long periods of cosmological time and then momentarily chaotic.[/QUOTE]
You say "if we have probability guiding" as if probability just exists. Probability is a complex system that depends on an entire rational system of mathematics to exist. It's a huge set of laws and axiomatic truths. That's like me saying, "If God is guiding the lowest layers." The difference is that theists recognize that a god would be rationally necessary while you seem to not think that your massive set of laws does not also need to be rationally necessary. I'm not seeing a relevant distinction.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53186843]I mean, you're just restating my question. I don't quite get how that clarifies anything. You seem to be saying that nothing needs to be either totally arbitrary or logically necessary, but I don't see that you've offered any alternative. Whether we can know what it is is a separate question.
I'm pushing this point because it's relevant to a consistent worldview. If you're OK with things being totally arbitrary, then that ought to change the way you see the world. Things do not need explanations because unexplained happenings are totally possible. To limit that to only the beginning would be to put rules onto something totally arbitrary, therefore making it no longer arbitrary. You would then need to account for those rules controlling it, restarting the question.[/quote]
I think this world is internally consistent. I also think that it could become something else - which would also be internally consistent. Neither is 'totally arbitrary'. Neither is 'totally consistent'. The rules guiding those mechanisms are beyond obscure and may be unobservable given that we have witnessed at least one event that transpired across the totality of the universe - which should be impossible if we're to assume that what we know now is how things always were, given our current understanding of the universe and physics. That we don't have an answer for 'why' the Big Bang occurred strengthens that.
[quote]When you say "it came" I have to assume you mean it came inexplicably, in a totally arbitrary fashion. Am I correct? I don't want to put words into your mouth.[/quote]
I'm saying that the reason for its existence could be 'turtles the whole way down' and still result in something either arbitrary or logically necessary - we'd be unable to tell either way as we'd lack the ability to 'see that far down the hole'.
[quote]You say "if we have probability guiding" as if probability just exists. Probability is a complex system that depends on an entire rational system of mathematics to exist. It's a huge set of laws and axiomatic truths. That's like me saying, "If God is guiding the lowest layers." The difference is that theists recognize that a god would be rationally necessary while you seem to not think that your massive set of laws would also need to be rationally necessary. I'm not seeing a relevant distinction.[/QUOTE]
Probability does "just exist", however. I defy you to rationally explain how things came to have a spin to begin with without simply declaring 'it must be as a causal effect of it existing and interacting with other particles'. We can model it, we can statistically analyze it, we can't fully rationalize it; we can't explain 'why must they exist and why must they interact with other particles' - merely that they do.
I think the universe likes to be consistent and forms rules through interactions, and those interactions are observably consistent themselves -- but that does not mean that those interactions can't change with the introduction/subtraction of various particles and so forth - and it also doesn't mean that there might not exist a low level of chaos in the deepest reaches of Physics which makes the whole system vulnerable to the extremely occasional dice roll. It wouldn't also really make the system 'unstable' as, within the bounds given to it, it would be wholly stable.
Changing one or two things about fundamental particles would change the very 'fabric' of our reality. What if particles simply didn't have a magnetic spin, for instance? The system would rebalance to make sense as the interactions would continue to occur. Reality wouldn't 'suddenly cease to exist' it would simply and radically change.
To put it in broader terms: A procedural dungeon generator doesn't care whether or not you include rooms that have doors. It has rules for what to do if it has rooms that have doors but it continues to function just the same with them as it does without them - the thing that changes, instead, is the result. If our entire physics system is built on deterministic outputs from occasionally mutated/changed inputs, that would result in a system that would seem perfectly logical and rational but in truth is partially arbitrary. We would also be unable to analyze said dungeon generator as we'd not be able to see all its rules -- because they likely wouldn't all be used. If the generator is set up to flood every second floor but not do so whenever the seed number was a prime number we'd never be able to observe that rule or even guess at its existence if we satisfied that condition, only could generate a world once, and had no access to seeing its code while running.
I do not think the 'massive set of laws is rationally necessary' - I think that it is simply probable for it to have resulted in the way it has - but also that it could've resulted in something else entirely.
Let me clarify something really fast. A probability distribution is a mathematical description of something. The mathematical concept of a probability distribution can't cause anything directly. So what we're really talking about here is some system that is described by a probability distribution.
With that said, we seem to just have a fundamental disagreement. I simply don't see how any system with certain properties, like a probability distribution of outputs, can simply exist without any explanation and without existing arbitrarily. That seems like an irrational conclusion.
[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;53184245]All a very romantic idea but science is flawed as much as religion is, for what we are told are lies spewed from whatever has brought us to this fake "reality" that we think we see and understand. I'm afraid the only real answer to life is death, and even then we may find we are caught in a never ending repeating spiral of the reincarnation created by the demiurge that has trapped us here. There may never be escape for us, but I guess then it would always be good to believe in something as ludicrously beautiful and mad as the idea of a big bang[/QUOTE]
I never thought I'd see an actual gnostic on facepunch
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
