Occam's razor

Does it really? Doesn't it seem equally unreasonable to suppose that there has always been something? If there was never nothing, i.e. if the past of the universe is infinite, then why has everything that can happen not already happened? The universe should be in a state of thermal equilibrium if time was infinite. We observe that this is not the case. Therefore, we must conclude that the universe did have a definite beginning. Whether by an act of God or through the Big Bang, the universe must have started from nothing.Cheers.------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-19-2003]

Parasomnium, your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Is it not also a valid possibility that there has always been 'something' but that something is being regenerated, either periodically in major events (such as the big bang) or continuously by some as yet undiscovered means.That is to say, there is no evidence that before the big bang there was nothing.

This is exactly where Occam's razor comes in handy. Our current explanation of everything, such as it is, is not in any way enhanced by the possibilities you propose. Instead, it is needlessly complicated by the introduction of elements that need an explanation of their own. In principle, we cannot observe anything other than the Big Bang and its effects, so we cannot even begin to contemplate explanations for what might or might not exist 'beyond' the Big Bang. First of all, that's a non-starter. Logically speaking, there can be no evidence of non-existence, there can only be evidence of things existing.Secondly, existence implies space-time. By definition, anything that exists occupies space-time. Now, if the Big Bang theory is correct, there is no such thing as 'space-time before the Big Bang'. According to this theory one cannot even speak of 'before the Big Bang'. It simply isn't a valid concept. So there is neither the place, nor the time, for anything to exist 'before the Big Bang'.But supposing the theory is wrong, and something can exist 'before the Big Bang', then the Big Bang is itself part of something larger, and the meaning of the term 'universe' simply shifts from 'everything since the Big Bang' to 'everything up to and including the Big Bang'. But then, by the same reasoning I used before, this universe new style must have had a beginning. Infinite regression looms on the horizon.Even if we suppose that there is, at any one level 'above' the Big Bang, a level of eternal existence, then this wouldn't solve the problem. On that level everything that can happen would have already happened an infinite number of times. But we'd never know whether we were living in the first episode, or in the umpteenth reenactment. The net effect of this would be that the history of the universe seems to be unfolding just once.All this is of course just my warped imagination speaking.------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-19-2003]

It is certainly true that we have no current means of observing anything other than the big bang and its effects, nor is it likely we ever will. However it is also the case that any meaningfully proposed theory requiring multiple bangs, or some kind of prior existences, will have theoretically observable components in that which we can see. I'd go into details but my knowledge of higher level physics is not sufficent for me to do so without making a fool of myself.I agree that it would be futile and pointless to hypothesise other bangs without any evidence, but I don't think we have sufficent evidence yet to discount such possibilities. Assuming they do make meaningful predictions.

Parasomnium I did not mean rile you . If I knew better how to manipulate the text at this forum I would hve put "seems unreasonable" in italics to indicate that it was not literal.It is, IMHO,far more difficult to concieve of nothingness(which we have no practical experience with)than it is to imagine infinity.As for thermal equilibrium being necessary to a universe of infinite time it IS difficult to say for certain since we cannot apply space-time in the classical sense to distances less than 10 to the -35th power in meters(planck length) and events less than 10 to the -43 seconds.(planck time) Inside of these constraints quantum interpretations occur and so as to time itself it could indeed be infinite and not reek havoc on what we experince as Space-time.Nothingness is, at the level of the quantum, not empty but a place of extreme activity and possesed of unusual properties.

TheoMorphic writes:

quote:

---

What i'm saying is that if creationists were to just given in and say "ok fine, we'll admit complex life can arise from not so complex life" they could then just go on and say "and so there is no longer a logical flaw with saying god created all life".

---

And that's fine as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution does not care where life comes from. If it came about chemically through abiogenesis, so be it. Supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence? Fine. Extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding? No problem. Interdimensionally through a rift in space-time? Bring it on.So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

evolution asserts that order can arise from not so ordered.

---

No, it doesn't. What makes you think that the current life we see is "more ordered" than the life that came before?Define order. Explain how evolution is such a bizarre notion regarding "order from not so ordered" when we can see things like water go from solid to liquid to gas and back again.Evolution has no understanding of "order." It only understands "different" and "adapted."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

you had a problem when i used "complex", and now "order" is no good either? order/complexity arises from not as ordered/complex because as time progresses life forms tend to become more ordered/complex.ordered/complex (my definition): the arrangement of components to produce a pattern, or serve a function. The more components that interact and still contribute to the overall function or pattern, the higher the order/complexity. So a snowflake is more ordered/complex than a mL of water because of the pattern that emerges. a light sensitive spot on an amoeba is less ordered/complex than a human eye because there are more components contributing to it's function. so evolution has shown a general trend in order/complexity... i.e. evolution has made life go from less ordered/complex to more ordered/complex.edited: to fix quote... how DO i get that blue box instead of this boring old line thingy?
edited: ok yeah the instructions are right over on my left.[This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 09-20-2003][This message has been edited by TheoMorphic, 09-20-2003]

For this to be useful, you need to supply a way of quantifying complexity (or order). To supply a tighter definition.I'm not the one to do that. I have read enough to get an inkling of how hard that is to do. And how hard it is to keep it agreeing with intuition.Isn't a pattern with less "order" more "complex"? If that is true then the "pattern" in liquid water is more "complex" than a snowflake.Does everything have a "function"?I don't know what all these terms mean.

I'de prefer not to not even try thinking up some equation that could quantify order/complexity. but what the hell. it's 6:30am and i haven't had any sleep.so C is going to be our variable for order/complexity. hopefully at the end (with out using actual numbers) i'll show a general increase in C is shown over time with regards to life forms.so we'll toss in 2 other variables P (pattern) and m (components) pattern regards a definite reoccurring pattern. so to signify a pattern we'll say any molecules (or groups of atoms) that are oriented in similar ways in a structure constitute a pattern. i'm not sure how well this will hold up, but imagine a box of tooth picks. now toss them into a box in space so they float, and freeze them after they spread out a bit. any chance matchings in orientation will be simply by chance. at any given time there will be a relatively small number of toothpicks that are actually oriented in similar directions. now arrange the toothpicks into a pattern of your choosing in this 3d box. any toothpicks that are oriented in the same direction increase it's pattern. several toothpicks with identical orientation will not constitute to an increase in p (e.g. a straight line of toothpicks is not overly complex) while a cube would have a complexity of 3 (toothpicks running parrallel to the x, y, and z axis).now components (m). ok, my mind is going a little blank. i don't know how i want to word this. i want to say if you remove a piece of a system, and the overall functioning of the system remains the same, then the piece of not necessary, and does not contribute to the system's m. but talking about overall function is difficult because what is the overall function? so instead i want to have something along the lines of if pieces that directly interact with the piece in question can still interact wit out the piece, then the piece is redundant, and does not contribute to it's complexity. should a piece be removed, and previously interacting pieces are not able to bypass the removed piece, then that piece was necessary, and this is added to the m.so C = mp. where was i going with this again? umm... so snowflakes are obviously more complex than water, because the number of similarly aligned molecules is much higher than water of identical molecules. there are no components in either, so this does not affect anything.uggg... maybe i just shouldn't bother.

It's off topic anyway
and I warned you it was hard ! If you want to keep trying start a new thread or find an old, appropriate one. Even what you have there might have holes if we think about it more.

TheoMorphic responds to me:

quote:

---

you had a problem when i used "complex", and now "order" is no good either?

---

Here's a problem:Suppose I take a handful of change and toss it on the ground. I then take an identical handful of change and place them in the exact same orientation.Which is which? How can you tell?Order and complexity are not something that can be defined so easily. It isn't just a question of "more parts" because more of a snowflake in the same pattern is not "more ordered" or "more complex" even though there's more of it.And now you introduce "function" to the mix. How do you know what the function of anything is? Is the "function" of a dime to be a unit of currency or to be a screwdriver?This is why science tends to avoid such things. Rather than try to ascribe a personal motivation to something such as "order" or "function" or "purpose," we simply recognize what it is. A dime is a small disk of metal that is commonly used as a unit of currency but can be utilized in any number of ways that are amenable to a small disk of metal.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If you had simply used quotes, like you did now, that would have sufficed. Surely you don't mean to say you have practical experience with infinity, do you? If I were asked the question, I'd say it's roughly equally difficult to imagine nothingness and infinity. To me, they are the same category of "difficult concepts", sort of. Regardless of what we can say about the underlying structure (the quantum planck scale of things), after an infinitely long past, everything that can happen, must have happened already, at any scale. The universe seems to be going in the direction of "heat death", i.e. thermal equilibrium. If this has been going on for an infinitely long time, we would already be there. So, if time is infinite, there must be at least a waft of havoc in the air. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. You may want to look up 'reek' and 'wreak')Cheers.------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams

TheoMorphic,Order and complexity do not necessarily go hand in hand. If I may latch on to Rrhain's example with the coins: please toss a handful of dimes on the ground and write down a description, in the briefest possible way, of how the coins are orientated, enabling me to reproduce the situation. Then place the dimes in a neat pile and again write down the shortest description possible of how to recreate the pile. There's no need to really do this of course, but the important question is: which description would be less complex? You'll find that, although the pile is obviously more ordered than the randomly scattered dimes, it's actually less complex, if you go by the descriptions. If you apply this thought experiment to the snow flake and the water droplet, you will find that the snow flake, although more ordered, is less complex than the droplet.Hope this helps.P.S. Maybe I should elaborate a bit.Suppose there are a hundred dimes. The description of the randomly scattererd dimes would go something like this: "1 - Put a dime in position (x1,y1,z1); 2 - Put a dime in position (x2,y2,z2); 3 - Put a dime ... (et cetera, et cetera); 100 - Put a dime in position (x100,y100,z100)", thus describing the exact position of each and every dime in the heap. Conceptually, there is no shorter way of doing it.Now we describe the pile: "1 - Put a dime in position (x1, y1, z1); 2 - Put a dime on top of the last one; 3 - If there are dimes left, go to step 2." That's all.The latter description contains much less information than the former, yet I can recreate a more ordered situation with it. Complexity is a matter of information-content. Therefore, the pile is less complex than the random heap.
------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-22-2003]

Parasomnium Ouch! as a response to my improper english and to that pun.Good shot old boy!Anyway,I am going to try to transfer an article to try and clarify my position as regards time.In a series of important papers, Bojowald has shown that one can study quantum states that are exact solutions of the full theory of quantum gravity and have the observed symmetries of our universe (Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001 87 121301). These states behave semiclassically when the universe is much older than the Planck time (10-43 s), and therefore agree with all that is known in classical cosmology. But they also reveal striking new predictions concerning the nature of the universe at Planck times.In particular, Bojowald has discovered that there is never an initial singularity (i.e. a point where the curvature of space-time becomes infinite) and therefore no first moment to time, as Alex Vilenken and others have hypothesized. Nor is there any excursion into a domain in which the universe has a boundary in "imaginary time", as hypothesized by Jim Hartle, Stephen Hawking and others. Instead the universe continues back before the moment classical cosmology predicts that it began, to a phase where it was previously expanding. This behaviour has been called a "bounce"; it suggests that the big bang arose from an event in a previous universe, either through the collapse of a black hole in that universe or from the collapse of the whole universe.The hypothesis that the big bang arose from such a bounce is old - it was suggested by Richard Tolman as early as the 1930s, and has been studied in string theory by Gabrielle Veneziano and collaborators under the name of "string cosmology". (In string theory, matter is constructed form loops of string 1020 times smaller than an atomic nucleus.) However, this is the first time that the replacement of the initial singularity by a bounce has been shown to be a necessary result of an exact quantum theory of gravity.Bojowald has made other important discoveries, and it appears that much of the established work in quantum cosmology, based on the application of ad hoc hypotheses to simple models, can now be re-examined using the exact theory.Now,in order to verify these theories perhaps we can predict what effect,if any, the "bounce" of the universe would have on the 3 degree kelvin background radiation.
I hope this may be of help in understanding that intuitive ideas of the nature of time are sometimes at odds with quantum effects.Please keep up the spelling checks on me. I fear as I get older I shall be making more such errors.Good day.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-22-2003]

Hehe, welcome to the Forums Theo