What was before the big bang?

[IJesusChrist]

STOP. None of you are correct.

 

[restin]

First cause only aplys to linear time . If the big bang took place in an area that wasnt dominated by linear time it doesnt need a start or a finish .

If if if if if if that's the point.

 

[Forkbender]

consider the following series:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5...........

what is the next number in this series? It could be ANY number, the only way to know which number comes next, is if you know the formula for the entire series, and it is impossible to determine the formula when all you are given is the first 5 times, the series COULD progress as follows:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc

OR it could progress as follows:

1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 etc

there is simply no way of knowing how it will contimue to progress after the 5th term in the series, UNLESS you know the formula. This is why inductive reasoning is fallacious

Bullshit quote of the day. Come on, you can do better than this simple trick. Inductive reasoning is complemented with pattern seeking. If you postulate that there is no pattern, then OF COURSE inductive reasoning won't work, but this assumption itself can be very well questioned.

 

[restin]

appeal this example to studies of the universe and you get into trouble. Even if you can calculate up to one microsecond before the unknown origin the big bang is still a conclusion.

 

[maxfreakout]

Inductive reasoning is complemented with pattern seeking. If you postulate that there is no pattern, then OF COURSE inductive reasoning won't work, but this assumption itself can be very well questioned.

Inductive reasoning isnt pattern seeking, rather it is assuming that you already know the pattern


i am not postulating that there is no pattern, what i am saying is that you dont know what the pattern is, and therefore it is completely invalid to attempt to predict the future outcome of the pattern. The example i gave of a sequence of numbers illustrates this. Both sequences have a definite pattern, which could be given by a general formula for the whole sequence, but the point is you cannot possibly tell what that formula is when all you are given is the first 5 terms of the sequence

 

[JJJ]

the big bang seems to me like a refusal to face up to reality because it is logically impossible

But when did logic start to exist? Just because the world you see is causal, does that mean that there has always been (similar forms of) causality? What is the concept of causality worth, if space and time themselves did not exist before ('before') the big bang?

 

[Brugmansia]

What is the concept of causality worth?

From a psychological point of view, it might be not merely curiousity that drives us individuals chasing after the actual true concept behind any causality of existance, time and space.

It is true that we hunt for the truth as well for making it us a founded trophy for which we can take credit. Somehow we know, as we rationally speak, that we'll never get to know what this all really is and who we are, but yet we humans all have naturally a tendency to spread out word in which we claim the 'truth'. We proceed severe. Indeed some of us humans are brilliant and with a favoured intelligence. But despite the work of those few and their incredible measurements, we haven't found anything that frees us from the energy of curiousity and drive for obtaining the truth. It'll be never complete enough for us to leave it alone. It's always a direction... and our intelligence will be never equal so the acceptance of the actual truth, if it ever comes or exists (which I doubt), is another shell.

It is very hard for us to make a seperated division for both mathematical and philosophical calculations, and it is very hard for us either to put one in another or vice versa to combine them. We don't even know whether or how much they relate to each other or not.

Any scientist, no matter how brilliant and how intelligent, will unavoidable remain human and so has an inner consciousness with an individual autonomous drive present to hunt for the truth. Each of us is a researcher driven by our own seat.

Let's imagine the impossible, tomorrow we're getting a visit from 2 aliens with a grade of intelligence millions and millions of cosmic years ahead. They provide us the truth about the universe and all it's calculation. It's clear, we longer have to search. Then what would mankind do...

 

[restin]

it's quite adventurous of you to call causality the main drive of humanity. Causality is very young and was born around the Renaissance and the following Eras. Earlier philosophies, religions, cultures argued with Finality and not Causality - which is actually the opposite. Afaik even Descartes thought finally and not causally but I am not sure any more.

 

[GOD]

Max , do you exist ? Yes or no . ( Yes ) .

Can you explain your existance with logic ? Yes or no ? ( No ) .

Does that stop you existing ? Yes or no ? ( No ) .

Does that mean that your existance is a theory ? Yes or no ? ( No ) .

If there is no logical reason / proof to explain your existance , just as you claim that there is no logical reason / proof to back up physics and the big bang so asking questions and makeing theorys is a waste of time why are you studying ?

I hope i put that simply enough that you understand .

 

[restin]

That's the point.

We cannot prove the existence of Max by logic.

Max' existence is independent from logic.

We cannot decide by logic if Max exists or not.


We cannot prove the existence of the Big Bang by logic.

If the big bang exists it is independent from logic.

We cannot decide by logic if Big Bang exists or not.


We cannot prove the existence of God by logic.

If God exists it is independent from logic.

We cannot decide by logic if God exists or not.

Examples of the different terminology referencing the concept of "heaven", in the Christian Bible are:

the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3), the kingdom of the Father (Matthew 13:43), life (Matthew 7:14), life everlasting (Matthew 19:16), the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21), great reward (Matthew 5:12), the kingdom of God (Mark 9:45), the kingdom of Christ (Luke 22:30), the house of the Father (John 14:2), city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebr., xii), the holy place (Hebrews 9:12; D. V. holies), paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4), incorruptible crown (1 Corinthians 9:25), crown of life (James 1:12), crown of justice (II Timothy iv, Cool, crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)

Pariah, if I remember it right, the Old Testament does not mention life after death.

Jesus actually promised heaven on earth. He promised the land of God here, in our lifetime and not after death.

Some people still haven't realised that god is dead.

God here means our Christian values.

We try to spiral out, and just end up going in circles Laughing

It just seems as if the whole topic is still not really agreed on.

 

[st.bot.32]

douglas adams is having a laugh from the grave right now i'm sure

 

[Brugmansia]

That's it. :idea: A Bundle of Psychonaut.com

$$$ $$$ $$$

 

[Forkbender]

Inductive reasoning is complemented with pattern seeking. If you postulate that there is no pattern, then OF COURSE inductive reasoning won't work, but this assumption itself can be very well questioned.

Inductive reasoning isnt pattern seeking, rather it is assuming that you already know the pattern

Not true. Read again what I said. I did not say it was pattern seeking, I said it was complemented by it.

i am not postulating that there is no pattern, what i am saying is that you dont know what the pattern is, and therefore it is completely invalid to attempt to predict the future outcome of the pattern. The example i gave of a sequence of numbers illustrates this. Both sequences have a definite pattern, which could be given by a general formula for the whole sequence, but the point is you cannot possibly tell what that formula is when all you are given is the first 5 terms of the sequence

Inductive reasoning is taking everything you know from experience and building upon it, ready to throw everything away and admit you're wrong when new experiences don't fit in. Your example is perfectly suitable to show this. A logical pattern suggests the next number would be 6. If the next number turns out to be something else, a new pattern replaces the old one. Inductive reasoning doesn't prevent you from making mistakes, but if things occur in patterns repetitively (just look at nature often following the fibonacci sequence), it gives you better tools to predict the future than mere luck, which is precisely what Pariah said.

One more thing: your sequence of 1,2,3,4,5. You say that the pattern cannot be known from this, but then you don't provide enough data. Only 1 pattern can be deducted (not inducted) from this sequence and the next number will be six. If that is not the case and 1,2,3,4,5 is merely an element in a greater sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,etc., then the prediction of the next number being 6 will be replaced (logically) to whatever comes next. Your argument only holds if there is no pattern at all, because then inductive reasoning doesn't have ground to stand on. So either this postulate is wrong or your argument.

 

[betadius]

i thought i remember reading somewhere the big bang is no longer...cant seem to find the right words...thought to be correct, and only exists because there is really no other scientific theories that can match it?

 

[IJesusChrist]

God is just the operator of a fractal equation.
I'm right you're wrong. :roll:

 

[st.bot.32]

funny, when i took astronomy courses, i never heard the big bang described as the answer to the beginning of the universe. nobody knows the initial conditions of the universe, because the laws we can test for with modern science simply break down after a certain point

from good ol' wikipedia on the origins of the universe and the big bang:

This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

A nice list of hypothesis dealing with what came before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory

 

[GOD]

"the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant."

= it was an effect and not the cause .

 

[Pariah]

*["1, 2, 3, 4, 5..........."

The reliability is dependent on the*size of the dataset*: having "1" means it is about as good as a guess, having 1,2,3,4,5 is better, but, a meaningful dataset still hasn't been presented, having 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 is much better, but even still, more data should if possible be made available. This all alludes to the use of statistical analysis, which leads on to the 95% confidence interval, or significance of variance for ANOVAs.]

Look up bayesian inference.

*[Remember that we use induction throughout our life to good effect: the closer I put my hand to a fire, the warmer my hands feel, if I come back to the fire and put my hands close to the fire my hands will feel warmer: this doesn't require some miraculous knowledge of the workings of chemical reactions, just observation. if we flip a coin to see whether our hands are going to be warmed or not we'll be wrong half the time, whether we know the workings of chemical reactions (read as "formula") or not.]

Learning does not require certainty, you can be right without knowing *why*, a good goal to have is to figure out a possible *how*, and apply that to reality.

Your being hypocritical with the "oh noes, I can't make decisions about reality: what if I'm wrong" approach - you don't lay in catatonia just because you can't be certain about things, you eat and drink, you avoid harm. life requires a certain amount of practicality.

A prediction as far as I understand it doesn't require you to assign certainty, in essence prediction can still be wrong and be a prediction, but you can use data, or an uneducated guess, scientific prediction is very rigorous. the data doesn't lie, you just have to develop the right formula which flows logically from theory.

***

"How is vacuum fluctuation an 'uncaused cause'? Surely it is caused by the existence of the vacuum?"

Vacuum fluctuation *is* the vacuum (included in its definition); if you were to say it is caused by the vacuum, you would be admitting that it is "uncaused".

***

"Pariah, if I remember it right, the Old Testament does not mention life after death."

Yup, I don't know how "mainstream" this idea is, but I think I remember references to Jesus being the guy who allowed people to get to the kingdom of God instead of some sort of "limbo" as in the old testament ("limbo" isn't the best word, but the idea is similar)... that would explain why heaven is such an ingrained idea in christian belief. some of the phrases used by jesus seem to be related to gods kingdom on earth (ie "the new Jerusalem"), but I'm not sure that he only talks in this respect - doesn't he talk to the guys on the cross about "paradise"? I admit my memory's a little foggy about these things, its been a while

"God here means our Christian values." - hence my talking about irrelevance - As I read it Nietzsche wrote about the idea that the world has moved on from reliance in god / Christian values, but has fallen into nihilism, instead of regressing and filling the void with god again, the human race should seek after "the next thing" - evolved values worthy of the death of god.


*Edits: info in square brackets already covered well by fork

 

[maxfreakout]

Inductive reasoning is taking everything you know from experience and building upon it, ready to throw everything away and admit you're wrong when new experiences don't fit in.

Not really, inductive reasoning means using past observations to predict future outcomes

Your example is perfectly suitable to show this. A logical pattern suggests the next number would be 6.

only ONE logical pattern suggests this, and there are an infinite number of alternative logical patterns that suggest other numbers than 6

If the next number turns out to be something else, a new pattern replaces the old one.

and this is why inductive reasoning is invalid, because you never know what the real pattern is

Inductive reasoning doesn't prevent you from making mistakes, but if things occur in patterns repetitively (just look at nature often following the fibonacci sequence), it gives you better tools to predict the future than mere luck

the only 'tool' to predict the future, is inductive reasoning itself, and it is logically invalid any correct predictions it makes are pure luck, it is just as likely to yield an incorrect prediction as a correct prediction, because until the future actually happens, there is no way of knowing what the pattern will turn out to be

One more thing: your sequence of 1,2,3,4,5. You say that the pattern cannot be known from this, but then you don't provide enough data.

there is never enough data. As i said before, the only data which allows you to know the pattern, is the formula for the whole pattern, and this formula is impossible to deduce from any number of past observations, no matter how many observations you have

Only 1 pattern can be deducted (not inducted) from this sequence and the next number will be six.

I already gave TWO examples of patterns that can be induced from the first five terms in the sequence. There are an infinite number of possible patterns that can be induced, and zero patterns that can be deduced

 

[maxfreakout]

"the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant."

= it was an effect and not the cause .

that quote is not saying that the big bang is an effect, it is saying that (since it is the FIRST cause) the big bang itself is inexplicable, and that therefore it only explains what came after it (its effects)