"Random" is the word created by us to express our incapacity to understand the universe. Everything has order, an algorithm that is pre-determined.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
That of course depends on which version of creation one subscribes to. A "big bang" (which has always seemed overly simplistic to me) suggests a starting point, however if one considers "many worlds" and all that implies, then we have another semantic problem. Precisely what is a "universe"?
I'm not even convinced that we are intellectually capable as a species to formulate the right questions within the proper context, much less answer them. In this sense perhaps the determinacy of the universe isn't so relevant as are Gödel's incompleteness theorems. This may be a case of having to determine what is true or false and not being able to do so.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
While you may be correct, what scientific method was used to come to your categorical conclusion? At the risk of introducing religion into the discussion, why would God be compelled to create by algorithm? If God doesn't enter into anything, then why would nothing be compelled to be algorithmic? I'm not going to beat on you for a faith based statement, but I don't see how it adds to this particular discussion.
Sumguy
Golden Member
- Jun 2, 2007
- 1,409
- 0
- 0
This reminds me of my roommates philosophy assignment. He had to agree/disagree with this statement and then argue for or against it. I don't know the exact wording he used, but it went something like this:
Imagine an omnipotent being. This being has full knowledge of all of the laws of the universe and knew the exact position of every atom, subatomic particle, etc before the big bang occurred. If you agree that all things of the universe must follow certain laws without exception, then it would make sense to believe that this being would know how the universe unfolds after the big bang. He would know precisely where everything is located at any given time.
Follow this to the creation of Earth. As the atoms combined to form molecules, this being knew beforehand that humans would come into existence. Since living organisms react through the manipulation of chemicals in their body and the outside environment is obviously following a rule set, they aren't necessarily free from the initial rules. Thus, every event of a persons life can be predicted. In other words, people do not have free will.
Of course that's taking the whole predetermination thing to a different level. But my roommate couldn't find a way to argue against it (logically, since he agreed with the progression of the ideas). I probably butchered to original statement.
Imagine an omnipotent being. This being has full knowledge of all of the laws of the universe and knew the exact position of every atom, subatomic particle, etc before the big bang occurred. If you agree that all things of the universe must follow certain laws without exception, then it would make sense to believe that this being would know how the universe unfolds after the big bang. He would know precisely where everything is located at any given time.
Follow this to the creation of Earth. As the atoms combined to form molecules, this being knew beforehand that humans would come into existence. Since living organisms react through the manipulation of chemicals in their body and the outside environment is obviously following a rule set, they aren't necessarily free from the initial rules. Thus, every event of a persons life can be predicted. In other words, people do not have free will.
Of course that's taking the whole predetermination thing to a different level. But my roommate couldn't find a way to argue against it (logically, since he agreed with the progression of the ideas). I probably butchered to original statement.
Considering that at the quantum level every event is random (just has probability associated with it) I would imagine that universe on the large is not deterministic.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
What "creation"? I don't observe an origin of the universe. Do you?
Generally speaking, the universe is considered the set of everything that exists.
Gödel's theorems are theorems about language, not reality.
hard to explain but I can give you a visual example of how the universe functions.
Take a pen and draw a circle over and over on a piece of paper. After a few passes you'll notice sometimes the pen falls into the lines left by the previous circles and sometimes it strays out and creates new lines. The more that you hit the same lines, the deeper they get and your chance of landing in them increases.
Events on Earth at least, follow the same path as events that have already happened. It is more likely they fall into the same lines as the previous events and their results seem predetermined. But some events can create their own lines.
I also believe some people can feel these lines or 'grooves' and thus can predict the future. It's not actually that they can see the future but their internal senses can feel the outcome of events.
I call it 'the needle in the groove' theory.
Take a pen and draw a circle over and over on a piece of paper. After a few passes you'll notice sometimes the pen falls into the lines left by the previous circles and sometimes it strays out and creates new lines. The more that you hit the same lines, the deeper they get and your chance of landing in them increases.
Events on Earth at least, follow the same path as events that have already happened. It is more likely they fall into the same lines as the previous events and their results seem predetermined. But some events can create their own lines.
I also believe some people can feel these lines or 'grooves' and thus can predict the future. It's not actually that they can see the future but their internal senses can feel the outcome of events.
I call it 'the needle in the groove' theory.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Actually, there is quite a bit of controversy about the meaning of the word "random," as well, although it is particularly over the disagreement between whether we can confidently identify actual randomness.
That's a lovely assertion, but as I already explained, "orderly" is not the same thing as "pre-determined."
DarkThinker
Platinum Member
- Mar 17, 2007
- 2,822
- 0
- 0
In my belief, the universe acts according to an equation of 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999....to almost infinity of variables.
Yes if you can handle the realization of each one of these variables and let alone calculate a new equations every time you need to....then yes you would certainly be able to predict anything.
However, IMHO the only being that has such a capability is God himself, that's why I believe we make our own decisions, but God can most easily predict them, he does and he knows.
Yes if you can handle the realization of each one of these variables and let alone calculate a new equations every time you need to....then yes you would certainly be able to predict anything.
However, IMHO the only being that has such a capability is God himself, that's why I believe we make our own decisions, but God can most easily predict them, he does and he knows.
I don't believe in religion, God to me is an impartial being who treats everyone fairly. I find your comment funny because you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, if you think God as a being sitting above the clouds and watching us all of us then you are going to be disappointed but what if there is a higher force that is scientific? how much science we know to validate the ultimate question?
The sum total of the cosmic energy is always the same, because to create something in this universe you need a second element or a combination, that cannot be random. The universe formed at least out of two elements, such reaction cannot be random because for randomness there should another force acting on it.
At last, I hope you listen to this audio by Gandhi- he answers most of our questions, I really like it: http://rapidshare.com/files/132889264/gandhi.mp3.html
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
That's not randomness.
I have a very high respect for Gandhi and his philosophy, but Gandhi is no physicist.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I didn't observe my parent's birth, however that doesn't invalidate the event. I'm not sure what you are arguing for here.
Also, Gödel's theorems aren't restricted to languages. It made Whitehead and Russel's work fundamentally impossible. It has to do with formal systems, however it's application in principle isn't restricted as you suggest. But perhaps you disagree, so to clarify my point, humans have a finite mind. To understand how the universe works might be beyond what a three pound or so lump of matter can adequately grasp.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
And einstein spent the last half of his life in a fatuous pursuit of a classical unified field theory, refusing to accept quantum theory.
And no, the universe is not deterministic. It is mostly deterministic on a macro scale, but quantum physics demonstrates that on the smallest scales, it is not.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I don't understand why you think that is relevant to the point. There is compelling evidence that your parents' births happened, yet such isn't the case for any beginning of the universe.
That there isn't evidence to substantiate the claim that the universe had a beginning.
Of course they are. That's what theorems of logic are. Read some Wittgenstein.
Formal systems are systems of language.
That may be, but it is tangential at best to the points I was disputing.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
That's debatable, but what's it got to do with the price of tea in China?
Citation, please? More reliable records indicate that Einstein did not believe in a personal God.
Does he count as a physicist?[/quote]
saturday evening post, 1929
Edited with more info incase you want to read it in its entirety
An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck," for the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post
Hmm...never thought of it like that
Well, if you were outside of the universe, completely detached, (which is not possible), then maybe...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter