|
Author
|
Topic: Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Philophically, chance is every reason to say there IS no designer.. From a phsyics point of view, the universe is governed by probalities.. and is not deterministic. This was shown with a number of experiments. Nope.. no need for a designer, unless you already assume a designer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 05-31-2006 1:01 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
Message 17 of 263 (317998)
06-05-2006 3:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
06-05-2006 1:44 PM
|
|
Let's see.. a designer needed to design the designer.. which needed a designer to design it.. which needed a designer to design it. It's turtles,all the way down. Unless, you want to get into the logical fallacy for a 'special pleading' for the existance of the 'first designer'.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 1:44 PM | | GDR has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 263 (318168)
06-05-2006 10:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:03 PM
|
|
That is the fun thing about having no evidence. You make any claim you want, and you can't be disproven.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:03 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 22 of 263 (318169)
06-05-2006 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
06-05-2006 7:40 PM
|
|
And your answer is 'We don't understand it, it must be God'. We do understand a lot about the probablity and at least the description of the way QM works. I don't see a requirement of postulating an 'intelligent designer' to have 'designed' the rules, since that begs the question about where that intelligent designer came from.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 7:40 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by GDR, posted 06-05-2006 11:21 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 27 of 263 (318221)
06-06-2006 8:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by cavediver
06-05-2006 7:17 PM
|
|
I'd love to know who started this rumour as it is completely untrue...
Karl Popper for one.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by cavediver, posted 06-05-2006 7:17 PM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 37 of 263 (318263)
06-06-2006 10:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
06-06-2006 9:16 AM
|
|
Even Hawkings hedges his bet on that one. It seems to me that there is different definintions of 'scientific determination' that is being used. Popper, for example, in his book 'he Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism', defines determination as "any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature". This is a 'strong' definiiton for determinism. Hawkings defines "scientific determinism" as meaning: "something that will happen in the future can be predicted." This is a much weaker version.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by cavediver, posted 06-06-2006 9:16 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 60 of 263 (318359)
06-06-2006 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
06-06-2006 12:56 PM
|
|
Re: What do you mean by chance ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 12:56 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 61 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 2:11 PM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 62 of 263 (318386)
06-06-2006 4:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
06-06-2006 2:11 PM
|
|
Re: What do you mean by chance ?
The ekpyrotic universe is quite distinct from the "cyclic universe" theory and neither fits Mike's description. The Big Rip is about the end of our Universe, not the beginning so it isn't like Mike's idea either..
From Paul Stienharts' web site... the pdf for 'Cosmic evoultion in a cyclic universe'. http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclic2.pdf The later versions is definately cyclical.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 2:11 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 4:23 PM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 64 of 263 (318413)
06-06-2006 6:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
06-06-2006 4:23 PM
|
|
Re: What do you mean by chance ?
But, it is a cyclic universe model.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 4:23 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 2:34 AM | | ramoss has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 263 (318662)
06-07-2006 9:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
06-07-2006 2:34 AM
|
|
Re: What do you mean by chance ?
The point is that yes, there are real scientists out there that speculate about a cyclic universe. That is not an unknown concept, and it has some basis.. although I don't know if these hypthosises are currently testable.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 2:34 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 6:52 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2