Comments:


nagash     Mon, May 3, 2010  Permanent link
you are not taking chaos into account....
Schmuck     Mon, May 3, 2010  Permanent link
Well of course there may be factors we have yet to understand, I just found it an interesting idea.

However, the ever reliable source of Wikipedia says on the subject of chaos:

Chaotic systems consequently appear disordered and random. However, they are actually deterministic systems governed by physical or mathematical laws, and so are completely predictable given perfect knowledge of the initial conditions.


So it could be argued that chaos, while appearing unpredictable to us, is still an aspect of the Big Bang, and so is still governed by the same rules which govern everything else.

Of course we don't have the "perfect knowledge" that the article refers to, but logically chaos does come from where everything else comes from, and so what we refer to as chaos could be yet another factor which combines with every other aspect of the Universe all of which theoretically trace back to the Big Bang.
gamma     Tue, May 4, 2010  Permanent link
If you consider the Big Bang to be the original event, and everything in recorded history and more to be these derivative events, it can be seen that absolutely everything that has occurred is dependent to the Big Bang.

The worst erroreroneous statement ever. You are missing out the whole creation.
SciLogue     Tue, May 4, 2010  Permanent link
Even if we had the tools to analyze every facet of the history of the Universe up until a given moment, there not an intelligence in existence that could "know" this information in its entirety at any given moment, not the mention that it is quite possible that even with these tools available to use there wouldn't even be enough time to complete the analysis. The point is that we can not know causality with certainty. I call this Being in the dark.

Being in the dark is a fundamental tenet of the human condition. An omniscient Being could have no will. I plan to be making my first post on SC about Being in the dark, I'll relate these stories when it is done.
Schmuck     Tue, May 4, 2010  Permanent link
Gamma, I'm not sure you understood what I meant, when I said "everything in recorded history and more" I was referring to absolutely everything that has happened after the initial instance of the Big Bang, would that not include the "whole creation" that you refer to?

And SciLogue of course I agree that no current intelligence could ever comprehend the knowledge of everything that has happened so far, however, should my thoughts be accurate, it would mean that the future of everything is fixed, whether we know what that future is or not.

Your idea for your first post sounds interesting, though, I'm looking forward to reading it.
gamma     Wed, May 5, 2010  Permanent link
The universe is not connected that strongly. Particles have many freedoms to move around and the randomness is coming into the system.
Infinitas     Wed, May 5, 2010  Permanent link
Schmuck, I have the same theory about fate. Everything has been cause and effect since the moment the Big Bang happened. Since that moment, an endlessly branching network of creation has been unfolding and interconnecting more and more. But every branch is able to exist because it had an origin.

This too goes for randomness. It cannot exist outside of the Whole unless it comes from outside our the space-time reality. Every event, choice, behavior, genotype, molecule, person, and atom, including their spins and isotopes, exist because of something that had to happen to allow its existence. Everything is emergent.

Gamma, I'm no physics expert, so I may be overlooking something.. but particles are governed by the four fundamental forces of nature that began at the moment of the Big Bang. How are they otherwise free?
nagash     Thu, May 6, 2010  Permanent link
you guys are taken the event of the big-bang as some kind of vector zero in a cartesian equation, where every entanglement is mathematically guessable and so, the entire creation is an experiment that could be duplicated - even, as SciLogue stated, if it couldn't be observable...

this makes sense, because of our current knowledge of fractals equations, right? well, I think it's wrong... I say that because I don't think the whole universe is as simple as the most complex of our fractal equations, and because I can't believe it ever had a vector zero, a beginning at all – the way I see, time could as well be just an illusion of our perception...

I see the universe in terms of infinity, that's why I'm agnostic in every aspect. I can't believe time has a beginning nor an end, even that it exist outside our point of view. I can't believe there's a smaller particle, or something too massive that it couldn't be insignificant compared to something else. I can't believe there was a "first" big-bang that was not influenced by infinite other bangs, and I definitely can't buy the idea that there's a dharma that is not infinitely organic to the point of being predictable – that would be a lame universe :)

you are trying to understand fate in logical terms. so, think of a computer simulation: if your simulacra of creation give always the exact same output, it's not complex enough, don't you agree?

nature is always the same, but always different somehow...
do you think the universe evolves, or it's static?
gamma     Fri, May 7, 2010  Permanent link
How about a four layered model

1. the universe is not strongly connected today; it is very uniform so it was strongly connected or the creation is bored at large scales
2. the code for of the universe is the same everywhere
3. the randomness is a quantum resource
.
.
.
.
4. some simple systems are unpredictable