|
On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N23MUt7Jyy0/T_BFZy17h_I/AAAAAAAABaE/Wq4-xDWyzIY/s400/gravity-just-a-theory.jpg)
You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt.
|
Yep, the brain and the mind comes down to chemistry and electricity. The beauty of it is that we may describe it any way we want as long as the forum of discussion isn't scientific ^^ So there was never any need to mourn the "magic".
|
On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) + Show Spoiler +You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt.
this is Popper's view from 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery', but I doubt that everyone agrees with it.
On July 10 2013 08:49 doktorLucifer wrote:
To answer the original question "Sure, why not?"
The mind is a gestalt, something that's greater than the sum of its parts. I think this concept is called emergence(?), and I'm sure it happens in other places in nature.
compare: holism or totality.
|
On July 10 2013 19:37 Ludwigvan wrote:
this is Popper's view from 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery', but I doubt that everyone agrees with it.
People can agree or disagree as they like, here's the definition:
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
You don't say "it's just a theory" as an argument against a scientific theory.
|
On July 10 2013 09:59 wherebugsgo wrote:
Uncaused events are not problematic-you need to define what you mean by that. Like I said, look up indeterminism on Wikipedia.
Specifically, look at the necessary but insufficient and probabilistic causation entries.
e: to be even more clear:
when you say "everything must have a cause" you are making an assertion that requires evidence. It is not sufficient to say that just because the things you have observed all have causes. I don't make the assertion that every event must have a cause-thus, there is no problem with the existence of uncaused events. It's only problematic if it's true that everything requires a cause, and there's no evidence that suggests that has to be true.
In addition, think about what it means for there to be an event and for it to have caused something. For something to have caused the big bang would mean that this cause would have to exist outside of the universe (just think in terms of space-time, a cause has to precede its effect as observed by all inertial observers). This is hugely problematic, because now we need to define what it means for an event to have happened outside of the observable universe. Add to that that there must now be a chain of an infinite number of said events each influencing the next.
I don't make the assertion that an infinite chain of events is impossible - thus, there is no problem with the infinite chain of events. It's only problematic if it's true that infinity can't exist, and there's no evidence that suggests that has to be true.
Can you explain why this is any different from what you're saying and why you so heavily believe one and not the other?
+ Show Spoiler +It is not sufficient to say that just because the things you have observed all have causes.??????
Then when the hell is it sufficient to say anything? You could say that about almost anything...
|
On July 10 2013 19:43 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 19:37 Ludwigvan wrote:
this is Popper's view from 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery', but I doubt that everyone agrees with it.
People can agree or disagree as they like, here's the definition: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. You don't say "it's just a theory" as an argument against a scientific theory.
well to be fair, "theory" in everyday language is used differently than "theory" in scientific language. so unless you have some kind of scientific backround (university student) its understandable that people get confused by it.
but yeah saying "its just a theory" is like saying "its just the very best thing we have right now"
|
On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt.
that is what i call arguing out of faith so i don't know ...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
|
On July 10 2013 20:47 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt. that is what i call arguing out of faith so i don't know ... http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
All of the alternative models they propose gives the same conclusion for determinism, so whether we call it "big bang" or "universe collision" is kind of meaningless. We lead causes back to the start of the universe. If the universe never started and has existed for infinity, we just continue to follow causes infinitly. It doesn't change the frame of reference other than making it bigger.
|
On July 10 2013 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 20:47 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt. that is what i call arguing out of faith so i don't know ... http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm All of the alternative models they propose gives the same conclusion for determinism, so whether we call it "big bang" or "universe collision" is kind of meaningless. We lead causes back to the start of the universe. If the universe never started and has existed for infinity, we just continue to follow causes infinitly. It doesn't change the frame of reference other than making it bigger.
you called 'the big bang' fact and now you're calling it semantics.
your first phrase is just wrong and the rest of your post, untill the last phrase, just agrees with what we said determinism is. your last phrase contradicts itself (making it bigger = changing it).
edit: and about gravity - if you can't see the difference between an observable phenomenon that can be defined based on other observable/proven/known data and an assumption pending scientific discoveries/experiments, then there is realy nothing else to say here.
|
Wow, xM(Z actually pulled the "it's just a theory" card. I guess I shouldn't be that surprised because my previous discussions with him.
The term Theory is just differentiation from a Law, which is just an observable thing that we see, but with no understanding of it. Like we haven't proven the Law of Conservation of Energy. It just seems to be true. Theories are much bigger and more complicated because they try to explain why.
The Big Bang is no assumption. The Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Unless you want to say the Doppler Effect is "just a theory" as well. And I'm sure there are things about Gravity that we don't know. That doesn't mean our Theory of Gravity is just a theory.
I don't know why I'm bothering with him though. He's just going to say something tangentially related and incomprehensible.
|
On July 10 2013 21:21 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 20:47 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt. that is what i call arguing out of faith so i don't know ... http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm All of the alternative models they propose gives the same conclusion for determinism, so whether we call it "big bang" or "universe collision" is kind of meaningless. We lead causes back to the start of the universe. If the universe never started and has existed for infinity, we just continue to follow causes infinitly. It doesn't change the frame of reference other than making it bigger. you called 'the big bang' fact and now you're calling it semantics. your first phrase is just wrong and the rest of your post, untill the last phrase, just agrees with what we said determinism is. your last phrase contradicts itself (making it bigger = changing it). edit: and about gravity - if you can't see the difference between an observable phenomenon that can be defined based on other observable/proven/known data and an assumption pending scientific discoveries/experiments, then there is realy nothing else to say here.
I can't believe you're honestly trying to stay in discussions like this when you don't comprehend what a scientific theory is. I never called the big bang a fact, nor semantics. I called it a theory, which you unfortunately do not understand the meaning of. My first phrase is not wrong, it's correct. My last phrase doesn't contradict itself if you learn english, note the phrase "other than" which signifies an exclusion. Your edit about gravity looks like a joke, you're just pointing out the fact even more clearly that you don't comprehend what a scientific theory is. Just like we can see gravity in action, we can see the remnants of the big bang, calling it assumptions show how little you know of the research and knowledge we have of the event.
Are you even trying right now?
|
On July 10 2013 21:21 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 20:47 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:30 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 18:16 xM(Z wrote:On July 10 2013 18:04 Tobberoth wrote:On July 10 2013 17:55 xM(Z wrote:
the claim of something being pre-determined implies knowledge of the first ever causation.
determinism just works in chunks within a frame of reference. It doesn't really. I agree with your sentiment that determinism only works in chunks within a frame of reference, but that frame of reference would be our whole universe since the big bang since that's the first causation we can get back to. Whether or not, and how, the big bang was caused, is actually irrelevant since everything has been predetermined since that point (according to determinism) and we can't even know what was before the big bang unless we come up with a way to reproduce it (since big bangs initial singularity obscures anything which could possibly be before that point). the first part of your post contradicts the second. the big bang idea is not proven. it's just a theory. as of right now, believing in a big bang is believing in pre-determinsm. it's the same as believing in God. after the big bang theory gets proven you can speak of determinism within that frame of reference. (edited for clarity, i think) You are displaying a common misconception about scientific theory. Theories don't get proven, you make hypotheses and test against the theory and try to find holes in it. Big Bang theory is about as "proven" as it will become, and that's beyond reasonable doubt. that is what i call arguing out of faith so i don't know ... http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm All of the alternative models they propose gives the same conclusion for determinism, so whether we call it "big bang" or "universe collision" is kind of meaningless. We lead causes back to the start of the universe. If the universe never started and has existed for infinity, we just continue to follow causes infinitly. It doesn't change the frame of reference other than making it bigger. you called 'the big bang' fact and now you're calling it semantics. your first phrase is just wrong and the rest of your post, untill the last phrase, just agrees with what we said determinism is. your last phrase contradicts itself (making it bigger = changing it). edit: and about gravity - if you can't see the difference between an observable phenomenon that can be defined based on other observable/proven/known data and an assumption pending scientific discoveries/experiments, then there is realy nothing else to say here.
Are you saying the big bang theory doesn't include observable data and facts? Because that's an absurd statement.
|
Gravity is indeed just a theory, just like the big bang theory is nothing more then a theory wich is disputed by some physicians wich are way smarter then annyone in this thread.
First there was newtons theory of gravity, then there was einsteins, and now there is a new theory of gravity formulated by Verlinde (wich is not widely accepted yet, but wich is verry promising) and whos to say it stops here?
It is completely justified to believe in a deterministic world (though i presonally dont) and to dismiss the findings of quantum mechanics and other physical theorys. You can not say that einstein made a mistake in saying that god throws no dice. Who knows what theory will come up in 100 years to explain all events in a perfectly deterministic way wich does not depend on anny stochastic process/description.
Claiming anny current theory has found THE answer to a question is verry naive, and a deterent for scientific progress.
I wish people would use their imagination more often,instead of their memmory/knowledge.
If you believe in determinism then try find a physical theory that works and that can explain the "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics and wich can explain the creation of the universe. If you truly believe in quantum mechanics and a stochastic world, then try to find ways wich can explain the manny inconsistancys with other theorys, and try find an answer where these stochastic events come from.
People are studying for ages to learn everything and to create mathematical techniques wich can produce the outcome of anny experiment. Am not saying this is ueless,you need to learn alot to get inspiration and completely new ideas, and to be able to quickly dismiss non promising ideas, But as long as you are learning what others already have found out and not spend time thinking for yourself, then you can make no contribution to the progress of physics or phylosophy.
Einstein was only an average physician before revealing his theorys, and manny of the things his theory predicted could not be checked till manny years later.
He was no professor at a university when he formulated them, and he did not extensivly study all existing theorys either. Still he made one of the biggest contributions to physics since newton (wich will never be surpassed) by simply thinking for himself and having a brilliant idea.
Newton himself was even greater, since he had to devellop his theory and mathematical techniques from basicly nothing.
Well i will leave it with this slightly useless remark , since the thread has not produced annything realy interesting for me to respond to in the past few pages. Hope the thread continues and that people, even thoose who have not studied phylosophy or physics will keep posting their ideas on how some verry fundamental questions could be answerd.
|
Not being a professor makes Einstein an "average physicist"? Wow okay dude. And I'm the one lacking imagination?
Yes, theories are expanded all the time as more details are discovered. Atom means "indivisible" which is wrong because of subparticles. So is Atomic Theory "just a theory"?
A Theory explains "why." That's why it's a Theory and not a Law. If anything, things are "just a law," but they certainly aren't "just a theory." Theories are not seriously debatable, though the details of them are.
|
I meant in the eyes of the physicians around him and before revealing his theorys. He was working at the bureau for patents, he was not working at a university trying to devellop new theorys.
Off course he was a great physicist wich i hoped would be clear from the rest of my post (made one of the biggest contributions to physics since newtion), maybe i should have formulated it differently.
The important thing i tried to tell in my message is that people should not mistake theorys for "the truth" , something i feel some people in this thread do. And also that people should not be afraid to think for themselves.
Up till now every physical theory has eventually been replaced by a new and better theory,sometimes the old theory got expanded and refined, and sometimes a completely new theory replaced it. There realy is no reason to asume anny of the current theorys is final, just because it is consitent with the outcome of anny current experiment.(wich manny theorys are not)
I dont dismiss the scientific method btw, it realy is a verry usefull tool.
|
Again, xM(Z did not say that such and such detail of the Big Bang is debatable and unsure, he said that the Big Bang Theory itself is unsure. Big difference. It is like doubting evolution or atoms. It is not open-minded. It is anti-intellectual.
And it is completely ridiculous to characterize something as "just a theory." That is bullshit and you should recognize the bullshit.
|
Off course the big bang theory is unsere, i realy dont understand how people could claim otherwise.
There are manny different explanations possible for the doppler effect (wich you take as one of the evidences for a big bang concluding from one of your posts) occuring.
For example, if you asume time ran at a faster pace the longer you go back in time, you can get exactly the same doppler effects, and you and i can probably think of manny more explanations.
|
On July 10 2013 23:18 Rassy wrote:
Off course the big bang theory is unsere, i realy dont understand how people could claim otherwise.
There are manny different explanations possible for the doppler effect occuring.
For example, if you asume time ran at a faster pace the longer you go back in time, you can get exactly the same doppler effects, and you and i can probably think of manny more explanations.
How would that get rid of the big bang part????
And again... it's accelerating...
Its not like I know all the different reasons why big bang is most likely. You're spewing more bullshit.
|
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
If you asume that time slows down, starting from a point far in the past, then you can get all the doppler effects.
You can even explain the witnessed acceleration of the "expansion" with this, by asuming that the deceleration of time increases.
You can say i spew bs, and maybe i am. But then it should be realy easy to shoot a hole in my alternative explanation for the doppler effect and make me shut up
If you do not understand enough of the big bang theory or the doppler effect to do this, then i have no problem with that but then you should also not claim that the big bang theory has been proven without anny reasonable doubt wich it definatly is not.
Annyway: i didnt come in here to fight so i dont know what more to say.
|
On July 10 2013 23:21 Rassy wrote:
Well let me ask you differently then, what evidence do you have that there was a big bang (i do believe in the big bang theory btw, but some verry smart and famous physicians do not)
Such as?
Edit: btw it's physicist, not physician haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
