The Big Bang

yellowled24 · December 2006

I say God farted and we were the result!

searchlightsoul · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Vast scientific study regarding different levels of consciousness show that at different levels of evolution, worldviews change. For example, there are "magical" worldviews which are strong in third world settings. This view also shows in North American culture in such beliefs as "voodoo", magical ethnic beliefs, or superstitions. At each stage of evolution with the corresponding worldview, understanding of our surroundings expands, while including the preceeding view. Also, for each worldview, those at similar stages see the same thing, and understand similar concepts as others at the same stage. Therefore maps have been created that can trace our stages of awareness of existing universal truths.

If you mean the concepts of God, giant chicken, etc. are lacking scientific experiment, I agree, since the physical sciences can only understand the physical surfaces of life. It cannot appreciate the depths, and it is not a study of interpretation. Philosophy is what science has sprung from. The "whys" of life cannot be ascertained by physical science. Philosophies cannot be proven/disproven except based on logic. I'm guessing as you say it, the giant chicken does not carry the same degree of rationality to you subjectively as other possibilities. However were it actually used as a symbol in the interpretation of meanings of life, I would agree with your point--it would be given equal weight.

I'd caution against you use of evolution in this context because it suggests that some cultures are more evolved than others.I also have no idea how you would quantify awareness.

I also think that you are incorrect in suggesting that physical sciences can not answer why questions. For example a common question in my experience has been why a particular structure is present geologically or biologically and this can be objectively tested. By objctively testing a hypothesis using for example some means such as spectral analysis, seismic analysis, whatever it may be we can observe things beyond our own capabilities so this idea of everything being an interpretation is incorrect. Science IS NOT philosophy because it is testable and we can obtain an objective scientific truth free from subjectivity.

angelica · December 2006

searchlightsoul wrote:

I'd caution against you use of evolution in this context because it suggests that some cultures are more evolved than others.I also have no idea how you would quantify awareness.

It's not my study, nor conclusions. It is the study of the evolution of consciousness/developmental stages that does this.

I also think that you are incorrect in suggesting that physical sciences can not answer why questions. For example a common question in my experience has been why a particular structure is present geologically or biologically and this can be objectively tested. By objctively testing a hypothesis using for example some means such as a machine (spectral analysis, seismic analysis, whatever it may be) we can observe things beyond our own capabilities so this idea of everything being an interpretation is incorrect. Science IS NOT philosophy because it is testable and we can obtain an objective scientific truth free from subjectivity.

Interpretation and philosphy can be used hand in hand with the physical sciences. However empirics and theory are clearly two different things by definition. The actual empirical testing remains separate from theory and interpretation of results.

searchlightsoul · December 2006

angelica wrote:

It's not my study, nor conclusions. It is the study of the evolution of consciousness/developmental stages that does this.

Interpretation and philosphy can be used hand in hand with the physical sciences. However empirics and theory are clearly two different things by definition. The actual empirical testing remains separate from theory and interpretation of results.

I still can't see how consciousness can be quantified, especially on what must be minor seperations amongst modern humans?

Interpretation of scientific evidence is not philosophy. It is a 'higher' form of truth (or just a differenet kind) because it is based on evidence not simply some logical progression lacking supporting evidence or a testable question.

NMyTree · December 2006

The Big Bang

How disappointing. I thought this thread was about Traci Lords:D:D

NMyTree · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.

Wouldn't the alternative be a Tube/Valve Universe?

Wouldn't a tube/valve universe while imparting wee-bit more distortion in the higer regions of even order harmonics; also impart much more warmth and romanticism?

:D

angelica · December 2006

searchlightsoul wrote:

I still can't see how consciousness can be quantified, especially on what must be minor seperations amongst modern humans?

"From Clare Graves to Abraham Maslow; from Deirdre Kramer to Jan Sinnott; from Jurgen Habermas to Cheryl Armon; from Kurt Fischer to Jenny Wade; from Robert Kegan to Susanne Cook-Greuter, there emerges a remarkably consistent story of the evolution of consciousness. Of course there are dozens of disagreements and hundreds of conflicting details. But they all tell a generally similar tale of the growth and development of the mind as a series of unfolding stages or waves....

Development is not a linear ladder but a fluid and flowing affair, with spirals, swirls, streams, and waves--and what appear to be an almost infinite number of multiple modalities. Most of today's sophisticated developmental theories take all of that into account, and--more important--back it with substantial research.

Let me give one of them as an example. The model is called Spiral Dynamics, based on the pioneering work of Clare Graves. Graves proposed a profound and elegant system of human development, which subsequent research has validated and refined, not refuted.
Briefly, what I am proposing is that the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as an individual's existential problems change. Each successive wave, or level of existence is a state through which people pass on their way to other states of being. When the human is centralized in one state of existence, he or she has a psychology which is particular to that state. His or her feelings, motivations, ethics and values, biochemistry, degree of neurological activation, learning system, belief systems, conception of mental health, ideas as to what mental illness is and how it should be treated, conceptions of preferences for management, education, economics, and political theory and practice are all appropriate to that state. ("Summary Statement: The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of the Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems," by Clare Graves; Boston, 20 May 1981.)

But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme. " --Ken Wilber, "A Theory of Everything".

Interpretation of scientific evidence is not philosophy. It is a 'higher' form of truth (or just a differenet kind) because it is based on evidence not simply some logical progression lacking supporting evidence or a testable question.

You might be overlooking that all philosophies are based on evidence. The minute you leave empirics to go towards theory, you're theorizing.

Scubascott · December 2006

Question for Ahnimus, and anyone else who cares to comment:

If you don't like the big bang concept, and prefer a steady-state model, why do you still believe in the deterministic nature of the universe?

My understanding is that the idea of a deterministic universe follows on directly from the big bang theory. The idea is that just as the outcome of the break in a game of pool is determined at the moment your cue contacts the white ball, the outcome of everything in the universe was determined at the moment of the big bang.

If there was no big bang, and no set trajectories for all the matter in the universe, why should the universe be deterministic in nature?

(Personally I can't seem to escape the idea that history of the entire universe was written at the moment it began. I absolutely hate this idea, but I can't think of reason not to believe it. I'm only thinking in terms of simple Newtonian physics, so I just hope that the situation is more complicated, and that I'm completely wrong. I'd desperately love for someone to give me an example of a truly random process. If there is even one out there, then surely there can be no determinism. One possible example that springs to mind is the radioactive decay of unstable nuclei. I don't know if this a truly random process or not. Its outside my field. Any physicists out there who want to explain it to me are most welcome.)

cornnifer · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

(Personally I can't seem to escape the idea that history of the entire universe was written at the moment it began. I absolutely hate this idea, . quote]

My question for you, just out of curiosity, is, Why? Why do you hate the idea so much? i'm not trying to be a dick, i'm just curious. Why does the idea bother you so much? As a scientist, shouldn't your goal be to take a completely unbiased approach to a further understanding of our universe?

Ahnimus · December 2006

Scubascott wrote:

Question for Ahnimus, and anyone else who cares to comment:

If you don't like the big bang concept, and prefer a steady-state model, why do you still believe in the deterministic nature of the universe?

My understanding is that the idea of a deterministic universe follows on directly from the big bang theory. The idea is that just as the outcome of the break in a game of pool is determined at the moment your cue contacts the white ball, the outcome of everything in the universe was determined at the moment of the big bang.

If there was no big bang, and no set trajectories for all the matter in the universe, why should the universe be deterministic in nature?

(Personally I can't seem to escape the idea that history of the entire universe was written at the moment it began. I absolutely hate this idea, but I can't think of reason not to believe it. I'm only thinking in terms of simple Newtonian physics, so I just hope that the situation is more complicated, and that I'm completely wrong. I'd desperately love for someone to give me an example of a truly random process. If there is even one out there, then surely there can be no determinism. One possible example that springs to mind is the radioactive decay of unstable nuclei. I don't know if this a truly random process or not. Its outside my field. Any physicists out there who want to explain it to me are most welcome.)

The Big Bang gives a good representation of a Causal Chain. However, I don't feel that a steady-state universe is contradictory to the determinist schema. Because, as the universe is now, it follows deterministic laws, steady-state simply implies it has always been this way.

As for a truly random thing, I don't think it exists, but I would deffinately look into any claims of a random thing with an open mind.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

As for a truly random thing, I don't think it exists, but I would deffinately look into any claims of a random thing with an open mind.

Quantum fluctuations are random- to an extent. Radioactive decay is probably the best example of this- When a particular radioactive nucleus will decay is uncertain, so its decay time is random. However if you look at all of the nuclei, they will follow a general rule of probability- ie- 50% of the nuclei will have decayed in one half life.

So we can predict overall trends but we only know the probability of when a particular nucleus will decay. That is why quantum mechanics remains deterministic when used as a statistical theory. However, there are still random processes.

The other factor is chaos. When combined with the uncertainty principle, it has a way of magnifying errors- related to the way that predictive errors evolve (and because of the uncertainty principle there will almost always be some degree of error- most of the time it is just minutely small). The matter myth by Paul Davies is worth reading if you are interested in more of this.

Ahnimus · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

Quantum fluctuations are random- to an extent. Radioactive decay is probably the best example of this- When a particular radioactive nucleus will decay is uncertain, so its decay time is random. However if you look at all of the nuclei, they will follow a general rule of probability- ie- 50% of the nuclei will have decayed in one half life.

So we can predict overall trends but we only know the probability of when a particular nucleus will decay. That is why quantum mechanics remains deterministic when used as a statistical theory. However, there are still random processes.

The other factor is chaos. When combined with the uncertainty principle, it has a way of magnifying errors- related to the way that predictive errors evolve (and because of the uncertainty principle there will almost always be some degree of error- most of the time it is just minutely small). The matter myth by Paul Davies is worth reading if you are interested in more of this.

Ok, but those are a couple of things we don't fully understand. So we use probabilities based on behavioral observation, right?

Ahnimus · December 2006

ClimberInOZ or anyone else. Have you ever heard of John Conway's Game of Life?
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

So, it's basically this thing, where you choose some cell starting positions and hit "Go" or "Start" or whatever and weird seemingly random things happen. It could eventually evolve into little pixelized creatures moving around. There are some examples at the link above^. But really it's just a simple set of rules that determines their behavior. This is how I see things like Quantum Mechanics. Unless you know the code, it's so difficult to predict the behavior, in-fact you'd be convinced it was random, but it's not.

Edit: Here are the rules
For a space that is 'populated':
Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by loneliness.
Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.
For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated'
Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated

ClimberInOz · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, but those are a couple of things we don't fully understand. So we use probabilities based on behavioral observation, right?

Absolutely, and in that sense Quantum is a deterministic theory. It is just that whilst we can give the probability, the actual event of a nucleus decaying is still random.

And while it is true that there are many areas of physics that we don't truly understand, the thing about the uncertainty principle means that regardless of whether we understand it or not, regardless of whether it is deterministic or not, there are some things that we are unable to predict.

That, to me, is a key part of the definition of randomness- lack of predictability - I guess it depends a little on how you define randomness.

Ahnimus · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

Absolutely, and in that sense Quantum is a deterministic theory. It is just that whilst we can give the probability, the actual event of a nucleus decaying is still random.

And while it is true that there are many areas of physics that we don't truly understand, the thing about the uncertainty principle means that regardless of whether we understand it or not, regardless of whether it is deterministic or not, there are some things that we are unable to predict.

That, to me, is a key part of the definition of randomness- lack of predictability - I guess it depends a little on how you define randomness.

Oh ok, but it's only perceptually random, in essence it's still deterministic. Just like a bingo machine seems random, it's not really. But on the perceptual level it is. So it's determined randomness, or just a determined result that appears random.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

ClimberInOZ or anyone else. Have you ever heard of John Conway's Game of Life?
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

So, it's basically this thing, where you choose some cell starting positions and hit "Go" or "Start" or whatever and weird seemingly random things happen. It could eventually evolve into little pixelized creatures moving around. There are some examples at the link above^. But really it's just a simple set of rules that determines their behavior. This is how I see things like Quantum Mechanics. Unless you know the code, it's so difficult to predict the behavior, in-fact you'd be convinced it was random, but it's not.

Edit: Here are the rules
For a space that is 'populated':
Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by loneliness.
Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.
For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated'
Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated

I have heard of something similar, but not that specifically.

I am well aware of the deceptiveness of apparently random events- and I agree with you that the universe does follow a set of precise laws.

I guess my main argument is that the uncertainty principle prevents us from observing the true nature of the quantum world. In other words, I am not arguing either for or against determinism here (I am a long way from making up my mind on that- probably won't ever), but rather I am saying that there are some events that are random because no matter what we know, we will never be able to predict them.

For example- Brownian motion (particle suspended in fluid, will move sporadically because of the uneven buffering from the fluid mollecules).This was always viewed as random, but now we know that if we were sure of the exact position and speed of every fluid mollecule we could predict the movement of the particle.

However, how do we find the position of every mollecue- by measuring it with light, and in doing so we disturb the mollecules and throw out our results (that is the uncertainty principle). Now, water mollecules are large enough for the error to be so small that it is essentially negligible (although that can change with chaos).

But if you apply the uncertainty principle to the quantum world, the errors are much more dramatic because the particles are so much smaller.

Ahnimus · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

I have heard of something similar, but not that specifically.

I am well aware of the deceptiveness of apparently random events- and I agree with you that the universe does follow a set of precise laws.

I guess my main argument is that the uncertainty principle prevents us from observing the true nature of the quantum world. In other words, I am not arguing either for or against determinism here (I am a long way from making up my mind on that- probably won't ever), but rather I am saying that there are some events that are random because no matter what we know, we will never be able to predict them.

For example- Brownian motion (particle suspended in fluid, will move sporadically because of the uneven buffering from the fluid mollecules).This was always viewed as random, but now we know that if we were sure of the exact position and speed of every fluid mollecule we could predict the movement of the particle.

However, how do we find the position of every mollecue- by measuring it with light, and in doing so we disturb the mollecules and throw out our results (that is the uncertainty principle). Now, water mollecules are large enough for the error to be so small that it is essentially negligible (although that can change with chaos).

But if you apply the uncertainty principle to the quantum world, the errors are much more dramatic because the particles are so much smaller.

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.

ClimberInOz · 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.

I agree that I think we mostly agree, although maybe didn't realise it for a while. Although I still disagree on the steady state thoery, but that discussion will have to wait for a whie- I am going climbing again.
Cheers.

Ahnimus · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

I agree that I think we mostly agree, although maybe didn't realise it for a while. Although I still disagree on the steady state thoery, but that discussion will have to wait for a whie- I am going climbing again.
Cheers.

lol, I'm just not going to pour my heart into either theory. It's not probable that I will ever know with certainty one way or the other.

Have fun

Scubascott · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

I agree that I think we mostly agree, although maybe didn't realise it for a while. Although I still disagree on the steady state thoery, but that discussion will have to wait for a whie- I am going climbing again.
Cheers.

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. . .

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.

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.

The Big Bang

Comments

Categories