That is pretty funny Alfred. In case you missed it, my username and avatar are a satirical and slightly ironic jab at people who hold onto their beliefs in spite of their reason. Something that I make every effort not to do. So, no Godmameat for me. I am looking for the bacon double cheeseburger of truth, even if the cheese is blue.
My challenge is that I realize that my long held perception of the universe is not sufficiently informed and that the remedy for that comes in a language that I do not speak. C'est la vie. So now, either I learn enough of the language to get the gist of it or I carry on in ignorance.
What you are doing is to demand that the new language matches the old one. Dogmatic by definition. I can sympathize because it is what I am doing with my questions. The difference is that I recognize the fact.
What they deal with is only the macro-scale shadow effects.
I think that I have remarked to you previously that seeing a shadow and concluding that something is blocking the light is not the same thing as 'seeing' a ghost. Funny that you should mention it though because I was just looking at a picture of the shadow of an atom.
Bottom line is: iron necessity reigns throughout on any scale.
Why? Why not just another spectrum like everything else in the universe?
It does not matter what you call it. Ghost or stone, it resists you and that is all that matters. They confuse what they can or cannot determine which is an irrelevant opinion with what puts painful limits to them so exists. To exist is to have surrounding limits. That's all determined means. The Universe does not exist in this sense, it's a collective idea of all that exists so no cause is applicable to that concept.
In quantum mechanics we want to know how the probabilities evolve, those rules for their evolution are the (quantum) laws of physics.
The probabilities associated with the electroweak force develop according to a different mathematical structure (or set of rules or laws of physics, which ever you prefer) than the strong nuclear force.
Lying behind these rules is a mathematical structure known as a Lie Group. The group controlling the electroweak force is called SU(2)XU(1) and the one behind the strong force is SU(3). For a variety of reasons people suspect that these groups should really just be part of a larger Lie Group. If this is the case then the probabilities for the Strong Force and the ElectroWeak Force are really controlled by the same rules and are ultimately just different manifestations of the rules of one force, the ElectoNuclear force.
I haven't mentioned Gravity. The problem with gravity is that it's not a force like the others, it's just a side-effect of spacetime being curved. This curvature of spacetime is still treated completely classically in modern theoretical physics, no probabilities associated with it at all. We don't know how to apply the ideas of quantum probability to gravity as of 2012.
These are two separate problems. The problem of the unified forces and the problem of quantum gravity.
However some physicists believe that they can't be solved separately, or more accurately that the unified forces problem would need to solved first.
Lie groups are basically mathematical objects that describe symmetries. I won't go to far into the details, but one thing I wanted to say is that the groups we use in physics are known as SU groups. There are an infinite number of these, SU(2), SU(3), SU(4),.... (SU(1) is completely uninteresting for physics). We also use the group U(1).
I should explain what these are. If you imagine an arrow on a sheet of paper, you can rotate the arrow by any angle and its length doesn't change. The set of all these rotations is a Lie Group called O(2).
Now if you take an arrow/vector in three dimensions, all the ways you can rotate it is O(3). In four dimensions O(4) and so on.
If we add in complex numbers (allow the vector to point in the imaginary direction) all the ways you can rotate it are called U(2) or U(3), e.t.c. the number depends on the dimension.
Usually there is one special operation that completely flips where the vector. This we usually don't include (as it turns out not to matter), so we pull it out. We then have what we call SU(N).
For the three forces of nature, the following groups are used: U(1) - The hypercharge force. SU(2) - The weak isospin force. SU(3) - The strong nuclear force. these groups are related to the symmetries of the forces, which seems like an incidental things, but if you know the symmetries then you can basically figure out everything else about the force. The full group is then known as: U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3)
Early on in our universe the Higgs field interfered with the symmetries U(1) and SU(2) causing them to mix together, the result being that we no longer see the two forces above, but rather the forces we call the Electromagnetic force and the Weak Force.
An example of how these symmetries work is quarks. Quarks have a quantity called color, nothing to do with visual colour, which comes in three types: red, green, blue. If you made a list of how much red, green or blue charge a given quark had you would have a list with three elements. You could consider this list as being a three-dimensional arrow/vector, with each of the numbers telling you how far it points in a given direction.
Now, since the laws of physics don't care if you swap a quarks colors around, you can basically rotate this arrow/vector as much as you want without effecting anything, all these rotations are SU(3), which is why it is the group for the strong nuclear force.
Another thing is that if a force has a symmetry group SU(N), then N^2 - 1 particles control that force. So for example for SU(3), we have 3^2 - 1 = 8 particles. These are the eight gluons. SU(2) has 2^2 - 1 = 3 (related to the two W bosons and the one Z). U(1) has only one particle, related to the photon. In total that's 12 force particles. (The reason SU(1) isn't interesting is that it would have 1^2 - 1 = 0 particles, so no force. In fact it's not really a symmetry at all.)
Now, in the 1970s people found that the full group of all the forces: U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) fit inside other groups. The smallest being SU(5). So the idea was that there is only one SU(5) force. However SU(5) has 5^2 - 1 = 24 particles. That would mean 12 new force particles. It turns out that these extra force particles would cause the proton to be unstable. The lifetime the SU(5) theory gives for protons is enormous, but experiments at the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan indicate that it's still too short.
In the history of philosophy, no attempt to argue God from non-God has ever been successful. That said, your attempt is innovative and interesting.
Scientists used to believe the universe was eternal. We now know that is not true. Some of the responses here have attempted to disprove your argument by appealing to a naturalistic cause for the Big Bang. If it was possible to prove a naturalistic cause to the Big Bang, then nature could be the “something that has always been here.” Perhaps that something is just a quantum field.
At any rate, naturalistic causes for the Big Bang can be, and have been, mathematically ruled out. That is to say, it is impossible for nature to be the cause of a low entropy Big Bang. Let me explain.
You always expect nature to result in higher entropy. If a naturalistic Big Bang was possible, you would expect it to result in a high entropy universe like a black hole. Yet the Big Bang resulted in a very low entropy universe. Roger Penrose has calculated the odds of nature giving birth to a low entropy universe as “one in 10 to the power 10 to the power 123.” In other words, if you were to write out the number using standard notation – 1,000,000…. etc. then you could put a zero on every proton, neutron, electron and photon in the universe and you would run out of room.
When you write “Consider the beginning of the universe,” you are dealing with scientifically knowable information. Your proof actually contains some science and this is what makes your argument interesting. Coming from a philosophical background, you probably want your argument to be completely science free – but I don’t think that is possible or desirable. I think if you could put more science into your argument, it might make it stronger.
When u consider the very high probablility rates in a preBig Bang phase space you r forgetting one really important factor - time
Without time all probablity becomes moot and defunct as you have nothing to measure any probability against. In infinity 1:2 and 1:1'000'000'000'000 are equally likely (thats not 100% true but I'm tired it's early and I hope u get the general thrust of the point)
Actually, when the odds are higher than one in 10 to the power 50, it is considered mathematically impossible even in infinite time.
You may have heard that if you have a roomful of monkeys and infinite time, they will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. Not true. They will not even type one sonnet.
Someone tested the hypothesis with real monkeys. Here's what they learned: "Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it."
In the article the researcher is claiming the monkeys are close to reproducing the complete works of Shakespears, but there is a huge problem with the claim. He is accepting it in nine letter blocks and the computer is matching the blocks to something in Shakespeare. This is completely meaningless. Among nine letter sy there is only 5.5 trillion possibilities. This random letter generator has already produced 5 trillion of them.
here is one of Shakespeare's most famous sonnets:
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimm'd; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd; But thy eternal summer shall not fade Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou growest: So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
There are 619 total characters counting spaces. No random letter generator would ever produce that exact text (including "return" button) even in infinite time.