The Big Bang

cornnifer · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

Cornifer, A scientist I may be, but an astrophyicist I am not. I'm a biologist. The reason I hate the idea of a deterministic universe is that in such a universe there can be no free will, no choice, no control over one's own destiny. Some here seem to find that idea liberating, but I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they try to tell me why.

Thanks for answering. i guess what i don't understand then, is how a "Big Bang" eliminates free will and choice in regards to one's actions.

CorporateWhore · December 2006

There is evidence that the universe is expanding. Most astronomers attribute this to the big bang.

catefrances · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I see what your saying. I guess I'm just used to people using Heissenberg's uncertainty principle to argue that pure randomness does occur. There is nothing measurable, on a macro level, that we know everything about that is purely random, so I always get into that debate. But seems like you understand it even better than me.

hmm... so if a principle is used to determine that something happens through pure randomness, doesn't that negate the randomness of the event?

Ahnimus · December 2006

catefrances wrote:

hmm... so if a principle is used to determine that something happens through pure randomness, doesn't that negate the randomness of the event?

I'm not sure what you mean, but nothing is random anyway

deadnothingbetter · December 2006

trappedinmyradio wrote:

infinity has a starting point...but no end point.

maybe he meant eternal.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

Radioactive decay of unstable nuclei. . . That's what I've been clinging to. Is it a truly random process however, or is it just governed by rules that we don't fully understand? I guess we can't know until we understand the rules. . .

In terms of answering if it is random or not, this is about as far as our knowledge of radioactive decay goes:

Either an alpha particle (2 protons/2 neutrons), beta particle (electron or positron) or gamma ray is emitted from the nucleus. To do this it must escape the strong nuclear force that bonds the nucleus together- think of it, for the purpose of this explanation, as a shield.

Now because of wave/particle duality, a particle behaves like both a wave and a particle. If we use an alpha particle for an example, the alpha particle wave is trapped between the interior of the nucleus and the shield of the strong nuclear force.

Now think of light reflecting off a shiny metal surface- even though the light waves are mostly reflected back- a tiny fraction of the light waves emerge on the other side of the metal- every light wave has a tiny chance of passing through and not reflecting.

Now apply this same principle to the alpha particle wave. There is a tiny(actually a ridiculously tiny), chance that the alpha particle may pass through the strong nuclear force and escape. So that ridiculously rare event is what causes radioactive decay (and how rare it is alters the length of the half life).

However, what causes an alpha particle to escape the strong nuclear force when it does is currently unknown (I think)- that is where you will find either your completely random event, or your deterministic application of the laws of physics. Maybe they will get some answers from this new particle accelerator in Geneva- it is meant to be giving some pretty deep insights into the quantum world.

Scubascott wrote:

Climbing eh? I just got a new pair of climbing shoes for christmas. Might give me incentive to get off my lazy arse and climbing again. Haven't done much since falling and breaking my arm a couple of years ago.

Good luck with that. Maybe if I broke my arm I would finally find a way to give up climbing and lead a normal life again... Was that a climbing accident?

elmer · December 2006

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/physicists_bigbang_000209_wg.html

newagehippie · December 2006

There is entirely too much information about the universe, time, and space that mankind has yet to learn. Even some of the greatest "proofs" breakdown once you take them past the speed of light, or warp time, or approach hypothetical event horizon situations. We just do not have enough information to correctly determined what is happening a billion light years away, or what happen a billion years ago, or what is going to happen in a billion years. Some of the most brilliant human minds (such as Hawkings) has spent their entire life trying to get their hands around it, and by making huge advances, they still don't know for sure. (Actually Stephen might, because he started doing the calcs in his head due to the lack of notation to translate it to other people, so he might know the answer to it all, however, he has no way to communicate it appropriately for us to understand). With that beign said, I am not going to make an assumption one way or the other, but I do know that there is much more to the Universe than Earth, just as there is much more to Earth than Humans, just as there is much more to Humans than atoms.......

Scubascott · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

However, what causes an alpha particle to escape the strong nuclear force when it does is currently unknown (I think)- that is where you will find either your completely random event, or your deterministic application of the laws of physics. Maybe they will get some answers from this new particle accelerator in Geneva- it is meant to be giving some pretty deep insights into the quantum world.?

Ok, that was basically my understanding of it already. So the answer is that we don't have the answer, yet.

ClimberInOz wrote:

Good luck with that. Maybe if I broke my arm I would finally find a way to give up climbing and lead a normal life again... Was that a climbing accident?

Yep. I was just climbing indoors at uni, and missed the last move on the route I was attempting. The stupid kid that was belaying me let go of the rope when it burnt his hand and dropped me. We now use gri gri's instead of stitch plates. They're a bit more idiot proof.

Scubascott · December 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Thanks for answering. i guess what i don't understand then, is how a "Big Bang" eliminates free will and choice in regards to one's actions.

Ok, there are a few points to take into consideration to understand this idea. Basically it goes like this:

1) The choices we make can be reduced to chemical processes occuring in our brains.

2) All chemical reactions can be reduced to collisions between atoms, which occur in much the same way as the collisions between balls in a game of pool.

3) The potential for any two particles to collide with sufficient energy to react with each other depends on their existing trajectories (ie speed and direction of motion). And these particles can only interact within the bounds of the laws of thermodynamics.

4) Big Bang theory (as I understand it) proposes that all the matter in the universe started its motion at the same instant. So, just as the outcome of the break in a game of pool is decided the moment your cue makes contact with the white ball, the outcome of the cosmic pool game that we call the universe was decided at the moment of big bang, when all particles of matter set off on their intial trajectories.

THC · December 2006

At the very least..."The Big Bang Theory" needs some advertising help. I mean...is "The Big Bang" the best line they could come up w/ to describe the creation of the universe?

sounds more like a porno then a scientific theory......

Ahnimus · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

Ok, there are a few points to take into consideration to understand this idea. Basically it goes like this:

1) The choices we make can be reduced to chemical processes occuring in our brains.

2) All chemical reactions can be reduced to collisions between atoms, which occur in much the same way as the collisions between balls in a game of pool.

3) The potential for any two particles to collide with sufficient energy to react with each other depends on their existing trajectories (ie speed and direction of motion). And these particles can only interact within the bounds of the laws of thermodynamics.

4) Big Bang theory (as I understand it) proposes that all the matter in the universe started its motion at the same instant. So, just as the outcome of the break in a game of pool is decided the moment your cue makes contact with the white ball, the outcome of the cosmic pool game that we call the universe was decided at the moment of big bang, when all particles of matter set off on their intial trajectories.

That is the basic understanding of determinism as it applies to physics. The beauty of determinism is that it is falsifyable, applicable across disciplines and with thousands of years behind us, it still stands. Determinism has a place in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology and philosophy.

I read a paper by a philosopher Searle. He said "philosophy is good until we can actually test it, then it becomes science.". Science is determinism. All of science uses a deterministic model of things. Indeterminism, free-will, has remained only a theory of philosophy. Indeterminism has no place anywhere, except philosophy. And in my opinion indeterminism has been falsified.

angelica · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Indeterminism, free-will, has remained only a theory of philosophy. Indeterminism has no place anywhere, except philosophy.

Philosophy and religion/spirituality. It's the spiritual aspect of our nature that recognizes our free will.

Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?

Ahnimus · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Philosophy and religion/spirituality. It's the spiritual aspect of our nature that recognizes our free will.

Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?

Nope.

angelica · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Nope.

Okay.

Do you acknowledge that religion/spirituality embraces free will along with philosophy?

Ahnimus · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Okay.

Do you acknowledge that religion/spirituality embraces free will along with philosophy?

Within philosophy. Spirituality is a philosophical belief.

angelica · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Within philosophy. Spirituality is a philosophical belief.

Just like science and philosophy are differentiated and hold separate functions, religion/spirituality and philosophy are distinctly separate. There is a reason religious/spiritual studies are quite separate from philosophical studies.

Philosophy relies on logic. Religion/spirituality is specifically beyond logic, utilizing other brain functions that are right-brain functions--ie: synthesis (opposite of analysis which is left-brain) and the gestalt or outline of the whole of any concept, which is the opposite of logic. Because two things are opposite, they cannot be the same thing, nor does one cancel the other out, as they are different. One is not valuable and the other "wrong", unless the perspective veiwing them is skewed.

I will grant you that all such disciplines are different ways up the mountain of understanding the meanings/purposes of life.

Ahnimus · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Just like science and philosophy are differentiated and hold separate functions, religion/spirituality and philosophy are distinctly separate. There is a reason religious/spiritual studies are quite separate from philosophical studies.

Philosophy relies on logic. Religion/spirituality is specifically beyond logic, utilizing other brain functions that are right-brain functions--ie: synthesis (opposite of analysis which is left-brain) and the gestalt or outline of the whole of any concept, which is the opposite of logic. Because two things are opposite, they cannot be the same thing, nor does one cancel the other out, as they are different. One is not valuable and the other "wrong", unless the perspective veiwing them is skewed.

I will grant you that all such disciplines are different ways up the mountain of understanding the meanings/purposes of life.

I would personally describe philosophy as the study of unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't matter if philosophy is logical, illogical, or just a plain guess. It's philosophy, it's all about guessing and imagining alternatives. Religion and Spirituality fit nicely into that concept of philosophy.

Then, we come to actually observe the phenomena and we no longer call it philosophy, we call it science. Because we can test our philosophical theories on an observable, perturbable thing.

To me, that is the dividing line between science and philosophy. Observable truths on the scientific side, creative guesses on the philosophical side. Religion and Spirituality are as you described creative guesses and hence they are philosophy.

Ahnimus · December 2006

"The problem of creativity is beset with mysticism, confused definitions, value judgments, psychoanalytic admonitions, and the crushing weight of philosophical speculation dating from ancient times."
-- Albert Rothenberg

angelica · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I would personally describe philosophy as the study of unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't matter if philosophy is logical, illogical, or just a plain guess. It's philosophy, it's all about guessing and imagining alternatives. Religion and Spirituality fit nicely into that concept of philosophy.

Then, we come to actually observe the phenomena and we no longer call it philosophy, we call it science. Because we can test our philosophical theories on an observable, perturbable thing.

To me, that is the dividing line between science and philosophy. Observable truths on the scientific side, creative guesses on the philosophical side. Religion and Spirituality are as you described creative guesses and hence they are philosophy.

Some schools of thought rely soley on left brain processes. Other systems of preference value the whole-istic interaction of integrating and allowing the left and right brain to work in harmony together as nature intended, holistically. Those who support and use holistic standards feel that the total of functioning of integrated left and right brain functions see the whole picture and that the total is beyond the sum of the parts.

Considering the right brain sees the whole picture at a glance, and the left brain can tease out and analyse details and their relationships, it makes sense that both are two sides of the one coin. Further, some might say that to only acknowledge one side of the coin would cause one to see a limited view of the whole.

You may not discern the numerous lines between disciplines that you don't value. That doesn't mean those very distinctions do not exist.

The Big Bang

Comments

Categories