Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

What was before the big bang?

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion JustinNed
  • Date de début Date de début
Pariah a dit:
*["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.]

the only way you could truly predict the future outcome of the series is if you know the formula for the series, which cannot be deduced from any finite dataset. The only data set which can be used to truly predict, is the entire sequence (ie an infinite dataset) which would make predictions useless anyway (you wouldnt need to predict if you already knew the entire sequence)


Pariah a dit:
*[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.]

You have no choice but to constantly make inductive inferences, but that doesnt change the fact that inductive inferences are logically invalid


Pariah a dit:
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.

i am not saying that you cant make predictions, quite the opposite, i am saying you *have to* make predictions. But you cannot make TRUE predictions, that is impossible.


Pariah a dit:
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

yes that is why i am distinguishing between a prediction and a 'true prediction', you can (and always do) make the former, but not the latter



Pariah a dit:
"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".

whatever caused the vacuum to exist, is the cause of the vacuum fluctuation, so it is not a first 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)"

Confused again max ? Youve argued yourself round in a circle again . You have denyed a big bang and now your useing it to back up what you say and to argue against me .

" the big bang itself is inexplicable, and that therefore it only explains what came after it (its effects)""

Thats exactly what i`ve been saying . The big bang is still going on . The big bang was an effect and not the cause .
 
GOD a dit:
You have denyed a big bang and now your useing it to back up what you say and to argue against me .

i am not really 'denying a big bang' (because i am in no position to say what did or didnt happen billions of years before i was even born). What I am denying, is that the big bang theory can possibly answer the question "how did the universe start existing?"


GOD a dit:
" the big bang itself is inexplicable, and that therefore it only explains what came after it (its effects)""

Thats exactly what i`ve been saying . The big bang is still going on . The big bang was an effect and not the cause .


an effect of what? The big bang is inexplicable precisely BECAUSE it had no prior cause. (when i am referring to the big bang, i am specifically referring to the answer to the question 'how did the universe start existing?')

i agree that 'The big bang is still going on'
 
Watch the Oxford Murders, a really good movie IMHO and some good thoughts about inductive reasoning etc.
 
maxfreakout a dit:
an effect of what? The big bang is inexplicable precisely BECAUSE it had no prior cause. (when i am referring to the big bang, i am specifically referring to the answer to the question 'how did the universe start existing?')

there are many theories in this regard, the universe originating from other universes or the brane theory etc etc. in the end of course they are mathematical guesswork that are based on our current understanding and technology/capabilities.

reposting:

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

i don't think there is much current science that could authoritatively claim the big bang as the first cause, when we don't even know what happened at time=0. of course, hypothesizing that the big bang came from some older multiverse really only puts the question back further, where did THAT universe come from? it may be impossible to know...
 
maxfreakout a dit:
Forkbender a dit:
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

So you are wrong?
Forkbender a dit:
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

You miss the point, clearly. There's an internal logic and an external one. Any sequence you name (1,2,3,4,5,... or 1,1,3,5,8,13,....) doesn't have a logical next step if you don't understand its internal pattern. Induction is simply to take what you have and follow that to its logical conclusion. Of course, in nature, there are no strict boundaries and you are right to point out that there is a sense of impredictability going on, but only if you don't understand what's going on. Nature's laws are pretty self-evident in the end.
 
This is not suposed to be another episode of the big dick contest i just want to say it and sugest that other people do it .

Rather than speculate about other peoples theorys why not meditate on the subject . Start at the begining and not do what weve been doing here and look backwards . Start with absolute nothing and work forwards to the here and now . Thats what i did and non of the things i say came from books they all came from my mind . Since i made my theorys a lot of them have been backed up by facts or other peoples theorys and i use those to back up what i say .
 
Forkbender a dit:
There's an internal logic and an external one. Any sequence you name (1,2,3,4,5,... or 1,1,3,5,8,13,....) doesn't have a logical next step if you don't understand its internal pattern. Induction is simply to take what you have and follow that to its logical conclusion. Of course, in nature, there are no strict boundaries and you are right to point out that there is a sense of impredictability going on, but only if you don't understand what's going on. Nature's laws are pretty self-evident in the end.


The point is, when you are given the sequence 1,2,3,4,5, there is no possible way to truly predict which term will come next, it could be 6, or it could be any other number, it all depends on what is the formula of the whole sequence, but you cannot work out the formula based on the first 5 terms (or based on ANY finite number of terms). That formula certainly isnt 'self-evident'

and therefore induction is invalid, the sun may or may not rise tomorrow
 
" the sun may or may not rise tomorrow"

Jesus your thick ! Your talking about probability . Yes there is a small chance that it wont rise tommorow but are you prepared to put your money on it ? It came up on all the days it came up on before for billions of years . The probability was the same each day . Playing childish games with probability just shows intelectual weakness .
 
You may not notice it, but your whole point is based on the idea of inductive reasoning itself. The way you argue your point is following the same kind of logic that inductive reasoning is. If you dismiss that logic, you thereby dismiss your own argumentation.
 
GOD a dit:
Jesus your thick ! .


My name is 'Max' ;-)



GOD a dit:
Your talking about probability . Yes there is a small chance that it wont rise tommorow but are you prepared to put your money on it ? It came up on all the days it came up on before for billions of years . The probability was the same each day ..


As Einstein said "God does not play dice"


there are no probabilities
apart from one and zero, the probability of any event occuring is either ONE or ZERO (in other words there is no such thing as a "small chance")

and there is no way of knowing what the probability of an event is until AFTER is has (or hasnt) happened

so the sun either will or will not rise tomorrow, the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is either one or zero :wink: :wink:
 
Forkbender a dit:
You may not notice it, but your whole point is based on the idea of inductive reasoning itself. The way you argue your point is following the same kind of logic that inductive reasoning is. If you dismiss that logic, you thereby dismiss your own argumentation.

no there is no inductive reasoning in what i am saying

in fact, im not really making an argument at all, i am simply stating the definition of 'induction'.

'induction' is a form of reasoning where the conclusion DOESN'T follow from the premises (in contrast to deduction where the conclusion necessarily follows from the combination of premises) that is all i am saying, and that is how induction is defined
 
Okay, I had a look at wikipedia's Inductive reasoning article. Basically the whole numbers thing isn't remotely tied to inductive reasoning at all. Karl Popper even claimed that no induction exists. We are confusing too many factors in this discussion, so I think we need to regroup and reformulate what this was all about.

I think before the big bang, there was a logic bomb, placed in a topic about singularity on a slightly confused interwebs forum on planet XR-23898 in the Sirius B-complex.
 
Forkbender a dit:
Basically the whole numbers thing isn't remotely tied to inductive reasoning at all.

that is not true, and the wiki article doesnt say it either. inuction is about predicting future outcomes based on past observations, with the sequences of numbers, you are predicting future outcomes of the sequence based on past observations, therefore it is explicitly a case of inductive reasoning


Forkbender a dit:
Karl Popper even claimed that no induction exists..

that is an absurd claim, and Popper certainly did not say that

"i think that the sun will rise tomoorow because it always has risen"

^ that statement is a clear example of some induction, therefore induction exists

Popper's claim was that science does not use inductive reasoning, not that induction doesnt exist. It is debatable whether Popper's claim (about the nature of scientific theories) was true or not, but Popper was definitely a very clever theorist, and he backed up that claim with some brilliant reasoning (about falsification being the essential aspect of a scientific theory)


Forkbender a dit:
I think before the big bang, there was a logic bomb, placed in a topic about singularity on a slightly confused interwebs forum on planet XR-23898 in the Sirius B-complex.

hehe i agree with that

:D
 
from wikipedia, Inductive reasoning:
During the twentieth century, thinkers such as Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, including probabilistic (Bayesian) reasoning [3]. Some say scientists still rely on induction[citation needed] but Popper and Miller dispute this: Scientists cannot rely on induction simply because it does not exist.

[3]Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688.

and this:
inuction is about predicting future outcomes based on past observations, with the sequences of numbers, you are predicting future outcomes of the sequence based on past observations, therefore it is explicitly a case of inductive reasoning

There are no observations in this specific example and neither is there a factor of time, either there is an underlying pattern or not. These sequences are used for basic skill testing and pattern recognition, they have nothing to do with inductive reasoning, because there are just two options.

1. There is a pattern and we can know it through the data we have.
2. There is no pattern and/or we do not know enough.

Usually, these sequences are given as puzzles, to figure out some internal pattern with which to predict the outcome i.e. the solution of the puzzle. Finish the sequence puzzles are pattern recognition puzzles. They are designed with a solution and because they are designed, you already know that either of the two options is true. If 1 is true, then there is an ´answer´, if 2 is true than there is no answer. You clearly designed the ´problem´ with this second option in mind and that means that you use this simple logically given fact to disprove something that some people (including Karl Popper) say doesn´t even exist.

You are simply manufacturing proof.
 
"Watch the Oxford Murders, a really good movie IMHO and some good thoughts about inductive reasoning etc."


Thanks for the link, good film once it leaves behind the clunky begining. A film about the failure of logic, probably should have had a less obvious murderer though! especially not one that I get right by induction! ...but perhaps they were making a point about parsimony...

Especially liked what I think is a bach harpsicord piece in the closing scene. It would have been good if the film could have included more about mandelbrot and company, but that might have made the film too complex.


***


"the only way you could truly predict the future outcome of the series is if you know the formula for the series, which cannot be deduced from any finite dataset."


My own definition of prediction (in the scientific sense) includes the idea that it is a conclusion brought about by systematic thought. It doesn't include anything about absolute assumption of truth. A true prediction in that sense then, is a conclusion brought about by systematic thought, that turns out to be true after the fact.

Nobody to my knowledge claims that truth is inherent in the assumptions of induction. Useful truth seeking is not confined to deduction. It is not "fallacious", it is not "impossible", it does not require the entire dataset, but most importantly: it works!!! The definition of prediction you seem to be alluding to is an unrealistic one, unrepresentative of its use, and its only good is to fool people into thinking your right, despite not having a solid argument using agreed on definitions.

What is it about 95% confidence that makes you think it is only as good as a random guess? That's just plain stubborn - why hang by a thread when there is a rope within arms reach? Why get trapped in a pathological paradox of ignorance while the universe is screaming to be discovered.


***

"whatever caused the vacuum to exist, is the cause of the vacuum fluctuation, so it is not a first cause"

This is an invalid statement. There is no justification for it: your just saying "this is the way it is, just 'cause" without saying what leads us to the conclusion. Its odd that you accuse induction of being fallacy, when you cannot even formulate *deductive* arguments yourself..... Not meaning to be cheeky, but do you know the difference between a valid and a cogent argument? ..that could be causing this whole mess:

For Deduction:
A valid argument:

a deductive argument in which it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.


A sound argument:

a valid deductive argument which contains only true premises.


For Induction:
A strong argument:

An inductive argument that would establish its conclusion with a high degree of probability if its premises were true.

A cogent argument:

a strong inductive argument that contains only true premises.
 
Thanks, Pariah, for putting my thoughts into words.
 
Yup , that was a very eloquent way of saying what i said = hes talking shit .
 
Pariah a dit:
My own definition of prediction (in the scientific sense) includes the idea that it is a conclusion brought about by systematic thought. It doesn't include anything about absolute assumption of truth. A true prediction in that sense then, is a conclusion brought about by systematic thought, that turns out to be true after the fact.

I totally agree, and that is why i explicitly specified that i was talking about 'true prediction' and not just 'prediction'

you can predict anything you want based on induction, but you cannot make a true prediction, this is simply the definition of what induction is, the conclusion does not follow from the premises


Pariah a dit:
Nobody to my knowledge claims that truth is inherent in the assumptions of induction.

if you are saying that the sun WILL rise tomorrow, then you are saying that the inductive statement:
"the sun will rise tomorrow"
is TRUE


Pariah a dit:
It is not "fallacious"


it is fallacious in the sense that the conclusion does not follow from the premises


Pariah a dit:
most importantly: it works!!!

It is impossible to know if it works. The only thing you do know, is that induction has worked up until the present moment, but that is just a meaningless tautology


Pariah a dit:
The definition of prediction you seem to be alluding to is an unrealistic one, unrepresentative of its use, and its only good is to fool people into thinking your right, despite not having a solid argument using agreed on definitions.

i am using the standard definition of prediction, which is, saying what is going to happen in the future


Pariah a dit:
What is it about 95% confidence that makes you think it is only as good as a random guess?

i already explained, using the quote from Einstein, that there is no such thing as probability, any event either WILL or WILL NOT occur, there is nothing in between


Pariah a dit:
"whatever caused the vacuum to exist, is the cause of the vacuum fluctuation, so it is not a first cause"

This is an invalid statement. There is no justification for it: your just saying "this is the way it is, just 'cause" without saying what leads us to the conclusion.


in order for vacuum fluctuation to occur, there must be a vacuum for it to occur in, therefore the existence of the vacuum, is the cause of the vacuum fluctuation, therefore vacuum fluctuation is NOT a first cause
 
Forkbender a dit:
from wikipedia, Inductive reasoning:
During the twentieth century, thinkers such as Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, including probabilistic (Bayesian) reasoning [3]. Some say scientists still rely on induction[citation needed] but Popper and Miller dispute this: Scientists cannot rely on induction simply because it does not exist.

[3]Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688.



Popper was not saying that induction doesnt exist in the sense that you cannot reason inductively, what he was saying, is that induction does not establish probability, which is exactly what i am saying



Forkbender a dit:
There are no observations in this specific example and neither is there a factor of time

the 'observations' are the numbers that are already given

there isnt an explicit time dimension, but with induction there doesnt have to be. For example, a classic example of induction is to say that "all ravens are black", this doesnt involve a time dimension, but it is still induction


Forkbender a dit:
either there is an underlying pattern or not. These sequences are used for basic skill testing and pattern recognition, they have nothing to do with inductive reasoning, because there are just two options.

1. There is a pattern and we can know it through the data we have.
2. There is no pattern and/or we do not know enough.


the example i gave was a perfectly good example of inductive reasoning, because it concerns predicting the outcome of unobserved terms in a sequence
 
Retour
Haut