What was before the big bang?

[Forkbender]

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

That sequence of yours is a mindfuck, max, it has nothing to do with induction. You are right that we cannot say for sure what the next number will be, but how exactly does that prove anything? There is no prediction in patterns, that´s why they are patterns. You postulate a sequence, saying that we cannot know the outcome (i.e. that the pattern is unknown to us), while at the same time saying that it is because we do not know enough that we can´t predict the future. While in this particular case that is right, you may not induce that induction is wrong all the time. = you are using induction to prove your point that induction doesn´t establish probability. You are experiencing some short-circuiting here.

 

[maxfreakout]

That sequence of yours is a mindfuck, max, it has nothing to do with induction.

why do you say this? It is a PERFECT example of inductive reasoning, trying to predict future terms of the sequence based on provisional patterns that you have previously observed, IS induction. And also, you can apply the exact same analysis to ANY instance of inductive reasoning

You are right that we cannot say for sure what the next number will be

and that impossibility of truly predicting the next number in the sequence, is exactly equivalent to the invalidity of the inductive method

but how exactly does that prove anything?

it proves (ie it 'demonstrates') that inductive validity is fallacious, because it exemplifies the logical process of inductive reasoning

You postulate a sequence, saying that we cannot know the outcome (i.e. that the pattern is unknown to us), while at the same time saying that it is because we do not know enough that we can´t predict the future. While in this particular case that is right, you may not induce that induction is wrong all the time. = you are using induction to prove your point that induction doesn´t establish probability. You are experiencing some short-circuiting here.

i am certainly not claiming that 'induction is wrong all the time' as that is obviously not the case. I am simply pointing out that it is an entirely invalid form of reasoning, it has no logical foundation

and again, there is no inductive reasoning in my argument that induction is fallacious, i am strictly sticking to deductive reasoning in order to establish this. If you disagree with me about this, then can you please point to the inductive inference that i am making?

To say that you cannot predict the future based on the evidence from the past, is strictly a deductive argument, and furthermore it is actually contained in the very definition of the word 'induction'

'induction' precisely means, a form of inference where the conclusion DOES NOT follow from the premises

 

[Forkbender]

and that impossibility of truly predicting the next number in the sequence, is exactly equivalent to the invalidity of the inductive method

prove it.

 

[GOD]

Hey mad-max . If you ever got put in prison and talked and argued like you have here youd get topped . If you had to go to court or a psychiatrist and did the same they would send the nice young men in their long white coats and pick you up , put a straight jacket on you , give you some nice injections , put you in the rubber room and throw the key away .

 

[maxfreakout]

Hey mad-max . If you ever got put in prison and talked and argued like you have here youd get topped . If you had to go to court or a psychiatrist and did the same they would send the nice young men in their long white coats and pick you up , put a straight jacket on you , give you some nice injections , put you in the rubber room and throw the key away .

lol yes i think that applies to a lot of psychonauts including yourself, mental hospitals are full of people who think that "I am God", that is such a cliche

I know how to act like a sane person and follow the rules of the game. And anyway im a philosopher we are allowed to be a bit crazy.

Psychiatrists dont fuck with you so long as you don't act crazy, and start harming yourself and/or other people

 

[GOD]

"I know how to act like a sane person and follow the rules of the game. And anyway im a philosopher we are allowed to be a bit crazy. "

Exactly . You can pretend your sane .Thanks for admiting what i said .

I have been in prison several times , been to court very many times and sent for psychiatric tests by courts because i used drugs and i never had any trouble or negative diagnosies . I was once interviewed by a all the psychiatrists in a hospital about me calling myself GOD and they didnt diagnose me as being ill or in anyway unhealthy .

 

[maxfreakout]

I have been in prison several times , been to court very many times and sent for psychiatric tests by courts because i used drugs and i never had any trouble or negative diagnosies . I was once interviewed by a all the psychiatrists in a hospital about me calling myself GOD and they didnt diagnose me as being ill or in anyway unhealthy .

a psychiatrist would probably say that believing that you are God is a 'delusion of grandeur'. But you are very unlikely to be sectioned or hospitalised for that alone, as i said it is only when you start acting crazy, and especially harming yourself and/or other people, that they bring out the thorazine and straightjackets....

 

[GOD]

"a psychiatrist would probably say that believing that you are God is a 'delusion of grandeur'."

No . They understood what i had said and why and they made a favourable report about me for the court .

 

[restin]

"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.

Yes, the movie is not perfect but I liked its statement of the absurd...And John Hurt It could have been more complex and I'd rather like it if it fulfillled its full potential but it was already very alternative and a higher standard would not make it entertaining.



I think we are talking past each other.

1. Fork and Pariah talked about "putting money" on a theory. Me (and if I understood it Max as well) say that one cannot find a guaranteed truth by induction. I really don't get your argumentation against it - this is a fact. You can only get a guaranteed proof by induction if you have total information - which is the "formula" in 1,2,3,4,5. Induction is simply not absolute.

2. Logic resp. cause/effect thinking stumbles if it gets to the source - cause and effect would logically go back eternally. Some people say "it works if time is not linear" but that's an assumption. Science therefore needed a theory that supported the reasoning of logic. Empirical observations showed that the universe expands - by logical assumption this means that it was smaller and if you continue the thought until the universe is at a point that is infinitly small, you cannot continue the path - the universe cannot get smaller than infinitly small. That's a logical contradiction. So, either a) the logical thought is wrong or b) the "First Cause" must have been a special moment above physics, then logic is saved and valid again.

Hence the association with God - as the people couldn't explain existence they took something that stood above them to explain their existence. The big bang cannot be argued deductively, which would have been the exact proof for the creation of the universe.

a) the universe is based on logic

b) the big bang is part of the universe

--> The big bang is based on logic.

Which is not true as the moment where the universe was created must have happened above logic. Therefore either b) or a) are wrong, while if b) is wrong, a) is not necessarily right.

 

[Crimzen]

the big bang wasnt the first event there was a universe before it and a big bang before that
the big bang and the big crunch, followed by another big bang etc.
its called the big bounce

 

[IJesusChrist]

the big bang wasnt the first event there was a universe before it and a big bang before that
the big bang and the big crunch, followed by another big bang etc.
its called the big bounce

lolz

 

[maxfreakout]

the big bang wasnt the first event there was a universe before it and a big bang before that
the big bang and the big crunch, followed by another big bang etc.
its called the big bounce

Does this process go back forever? Or was there a 'first' big bang that started the chain of bangs and crunches?

 

[Crimzen]

its infinite in both directions
it always has been and always will be
if there was a 'first' big bang we might as well assume the most recent one was the first as it reaches the same conclusion

time is included in the theory, so when the universe crunches so does time
but when it big bangs again its not the same, so its not like we have been here and we'll be here again

 

[IJesusChrist]

its infinite in both directions
it always has been and always will be``

This is kind of the scientific version of "God exists and always will, and I don't need to prove anything, I'm right"

 

[Crimzen]

yes blind faith is my best friend :roll:

wow you sure read alot into things that werent said at all..
for example me saying i dont need to prove anything or that im right

i may very well be completely wrong its just my opinion
you cant have something scientific without proof, thats scientology
:wink:
so its not a scientific version of anything at all

i just gave my opinion
and its not a deep seeded belief, if i find a theory that makes more sense to me i'll take that up

 

[Pariah]

Sorry about the late reply, I've been obscenely busy.


On induction: "it has no logical foundation"

Thats not true - the process in induction is a logical (read as "systematic") one, but unlike deduction it doesn't create a "logically invincible" answer - but one to high probability instead...

"you cannot predict the future based on the evidence from the past, is strictly a deductive argument"

The problem is that you are using your own strawman definition of prediction which is a fantasy - as I've said; prediction doesn't claim certainty.

on probability:

"no such thing as probability, any event either WILL or WILL NOT occur, there is nothing in between"

That is a demonstration of *possibility* not probability.

Probability according to our lord and master Wikipedia:

"a measure of the weight of empirical evidence"... "arrived at from inductive reasoning and statistical inference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Etymology

on vacuum fluctuation:

"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"

"there must be a vacuum for it to occur in"

"must"

If you meant without anything including vacuum:

How on earth can claim that??!! how do you know how can you? the evidence *for* is that at the lowest energy state known - measurable energy change happens spontaneously.

If you mean in a particle filled sense: It's important in established chemical ("non-vacuum") interactions... I think I've already said that...

***
"a) the universe is based on logic

b) the big bang is part of the universe

--> The big bang is based on logic."

I don't accept the first premise - Logic is a human *process* - we use it to discover truths, it isn't a truth itself. ... I can't think of a better way of formulating that clearly... I hope it makes sense. even the second is questionable, it could be stated that the big bang *was* the universe.


"one cannot find a guaranteed truth by induction."

That's very true, but as I've been saying, induction doesn't claim certainty, it claims high probability.


" the universe cannot get smaller than infinitley small"

I think Plank's constant sorts out problems of infinity... but I don't think an "infinitely" small point is claimed, only a very dense one.

***

"And John Hurt"

!! you read my mind good to see more of him after his great performance in V for Vendetta.

 

[restin]

I don't accept the first premise - Logic is a human *process* - we use it to discover truths, it isn't a truth itself. ... I can't think of a better way of formulating that clearly... I hope it makes sense. even the second is questionable, it could be stated that the big bang *was* the universe.


"one cannot find a guaranteed truth by induction."

That's very true, but as I've been saying, induction doesn't claim certainty, it claims high probability.

That's why I wrote that we're talking past each other. I don't disagree with you. Nonetheless the "high" propability is not constant. Especially when talking about big bang. Based on today's knowledge there it is possible that the big bang occured - but we still don't know (! know !) how time works, how spaceless space (not equal to vacuum) or timeless time looks like and can therefore not tell how the big bang occured.

Logic is a human process and science is based on logic. Therefore it is dangerous to apply it when talking about Truth.

 

[cockknocker]

dont know if anyone has said this, cant be bothered to look through the whole thing, but......


CHUCK NORRIS!

 

[Pariah]

...You know what knocker, you might be on to something here...

or it could all just be gnomes:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Phys ... out_Gnomes

 

[maxfreakout]

On induction: "it has no logical foundation"

Thats not true - the process in induction is a logical (read as "systematic") one, but unlike deduction it doesn't create a "logically invincible" answer - but one to high probability instead...

Induction has no logical foundation

It is 'systematic' but that isnt the same thing as being logical. The conclusion of an inductive argument does not follow logically from its premises, therefore induction has no logical foundation

an inductive argument does not mention probability

for example, the classic inductive argument about white swans, does NOT say that "it is highly probable that all swans are white", the argument says, that because all observed swans have been white, the next observation of a swan witll also turn out to be white, this is a standard inductive prediction, and its falsity demonstrates the logical invalidity of induction

"you cannot predict the future based on the evidence from the past, is strictly a deductive argument"

The problem is that you are using your own strawman definition of prediction which is a fantasy - as I've said; prediction doesn't claim certainty.

I am using the standard, dictionary definition of 'prediction' - "to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell". To predict that p DOES imply that p is the case - ie that it is certain to be the case

So please explain what you meant when you said that i was using an inductive argument to claim that induction is invalid, because this is in fact not the case, the arguments that i am using are strictly deductive, they are logically certain. ~And i am using an entirely standard definition of 'prediction'

on probability:

"no such thing as probability, any event either WILL or WILL NOT occur, there is nothing in between"

That is a demonstration of *possibility* not probability

No it is nothing to do with possibility, i am talking about probability, the probability of any event occuring in the future is either one or zero

Probability according to our lord and master Wikipedia:

"a measure of the weight of empirical evidence"... "arrived at from inductive reasoning and statistical inference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Etymology

i agree with that definition, and it does not contradict what i said, if you use induction and follow it through, the probability of any event occuring is only one or zero, in other words there is no such thing as 'probability' as it is commonly understood, probability is a myth

"God does not play dice" - Einstein

on vacuum fluctuation:

.....................
How on earth can claim that??!! how do you know how can you? the evidence *for* is that at the lowest energy state known - measurable energy change happens spontaneously.

If you mean in a particle filled sense: It's important in established chemical ("non-vacuum") interactions... I think I've already said that...

You claimed that vacuum fluctuation is a 'first cause' and you have not justified this claim, in order for vacuum fluctuation to occur, there must first exist a universe for it to occur in, therefore vacuum fluctuation is not a first cause. The existence of the universe is the first cause, and this is (commonly) explained with reference to a big bang