Life .. Random or Determined?

[erm]

Those aren't just fancy terms.. they are ways to define things, as used in the scientific community... I can explain what they mean, if you like, but I assume that people are capable of looking something up if it's not easily understood.

They mean nothing beyond what I said. In science, they only hold a seperate meaning when you quantify (limit) the terms (electricity, motion, 4 moles, 8 joules etc.). The term "biochemical" on its own describes everything. Simply because of the word "chemistry" in there.

What doesn't count as chemistry? In reference to my previous post; If the Christian god exists, he would be studied chemically. Anything that exists can be studied chemically.

I'm not going to spend my time writing out fifteen paragraphs to try to explain all the things that a biochemical process can be. I used the term to begin with because it's all encompassing and I would rather not go into explanation of neurons, dendrites, serotonin, etc or to explain the way that DNA and RNA behaves. It took me 4 years to get my biochemistry degree. I'd rather not spend 4 more trying to write a random post on a forum to explain little things that, if someone is interested, they can easily look up. I'm just putting my opinion out there.

You could explain the processes I already know. It wouldn't answer the question though.

E.g. This is how the brain functions, DNA, RNA, Neurons etc.

After all that, the question "is it random or determined?" is still there. What is it about that explanation you'd give, that makes "life" random or determined? What is it about the nature of DNA that makes you think it is random?

It doesn't need to be that complex an explanation either. Simply "when you cut of someones head, they die", is that random or determined? A molecule exists, is that random or determined?

You are right.. I don't want to debate it. I'm just stating how I see the issue. You are welcome to disagree, but when you start using words like "fancy" or "vague", it rubs me a little wrong

Right.

You are implying something, without saying it outright. I'd rather you just say "I disagree and this is why" rather than attacking how I constructed what I wanted to say. That's a little nit picky to go after the way its' said rather than what is actually said. I might be more willing to debate, if that were the way it was approached.

I've said exactly what I meant, saying it all outright. Basically I'm pointing out that you and others haven't answered the question.

What I said before clearly shows that I don't disagree (I can't disagree with something so vague). It's not about the way it's said, it's about what is said.

Oh, and it's rude to come in and say "your posts and most others have no sensible meaning".

So what debate etiquette should I follow?

It's a common statement made in philosophy. Happens a lot.

You've just pointed out everyone else's inconsistencies, in your opinion.

What's you point? (I did actually make some positive statement in my first post)

If I don't have a particular opinion, and see flaws in other's opinions, I will still take part in a debate, rather than ignore the flaws.

I find putting "in my opinion" a redundant statement in a debate or throughout all situations, but it is there after everything I say or do.

 

[Fuulie]

-----

Yeah, I kind of see how that can be, but I am more leaning toward life being determined via the principle of universal causation, though perhaps there is still the slight chance of there being randomness via quantum mechanics. I'll have to keep an eye on those odd little particles influences....

OH MY GOD.
SOMEONE FINDS ME FUNNY. D8

That's an interesting way to think of it. I've mostly just thought about it in my own head, not doing much actual research, so I can't really claim to know what I'm talking about, but I've always solved the problem of predetermined vs. random through probability and percentages. Which, to me, means both random AND predetermined, in a way.

Feel free to rip that apart. :'o

 

[ring the bell]

What doesn't count as chemistry? In reference to my previous post; If the Christian god exists, he would be studied chemically. Anything that exists can be studied chemically.

What is it about that explanation you'd give, that makes "life" random or determined? What is it about the nature of DNA that makes you think it is random?

It doesn't need to be that complex an explanation either. Simply "when you cut of someones head, they die", is that random or determined? A molecule exists, is that random or determined?

I equate random vs determined to the debate of no god vs god. I think it really boils down to what you feel most comfortable with seeing and feeling. My explanation, while long winded, is my attempt to explain the frame work in which I view the world and existence. You don't have to agree, I would just expect that you respect it and not tell me I'm being meaningless. Perhaps I should just look the other way and not care... but I can't. I'm just a little tired of the way some people approach "debates" on this forum. I think there are people who are interested in gaining knowledge and then there are those who just want to pick at others to make themselves seem more knowledgeable. There's a way to say "hmm.. I don't follow. could you explain further" and it doesn't include throwing out that you think no one's opinion has "sensible meaning". They do.. I just prefer to see it all approached respectfully. Anyway, I'm dropping that aspect of this and I will put into words how I feel on the subject.


Our genetic matieral and the way that our bodies replicate cells and create new human life all follow a sort of trend. There is a pretty well known and set process for which DNA and RNA replicates within our cells to produce new cells or sex cells. Mitosis and Mieosis happen in a way that is built into our genes. Our genetics contain all the information that a cell needs to know what to do and what to grow to. It is a given, however, that mistakes happen when DNA or RNA is replicated. There are millions of base pairs in a DNA strand. It's only right that there might be a hiccup along the way somewhere. There are checks and balances within our bodies to correct these mistakes through enzymatic pathways during the process of replication. However, not all mistakes are caught or corrected. Sometimes, it matters and sometimes it doesn't. Not every scrap of our genetic material is passed on to the next generation. Or, in the case of females, crossing over of certain traits occurs between the chromosomes. It's all random. There is no code within our DNA that says "you will cross over from this pair to that pair". Outside influences, such as environmental factors or free radicals, also influence this process. Cancer, for example, is nothing more than a cell or few cells that have gone a little wacky for some reason due to either genetics or some outside agent. This is important, as that genetic material that is passed on will be the basis for a new human being.

When these mutations in DNA occur and are passed on to the next generation, it may mean expression of a new or better trait or it might mean nothing. Say a mutation in the DNA made someone be a bit stronger and more appealing to a mate. They have therefore increased probability of mating and will therefore be more likely to pass on that trait. Perhaps a mutation causes sterility. It won't be passed on. End of story.

I see the way that genetics works as the entire basis of evolution. These changes took us from hairy primates to what we are today. When I look at this question as a while, random vs determined, I lean towards random. To be determined, the present would have to be because of the laws of nature and the way things have been, correct? I think, in that context, it would be crucial to understand which "laws of nature" you would wish to subscribe to. To me, if I were to look basically at the laws surrounding DNA replication, the body intends to replicate itself exactly. It tries to ensure that happens with it's own method of double checking and fixing. Yet, that is not the result that actually happens, because the nature of the entire process is just not such that it would easily happen. Random events happen that cause the end result to not be equal to the parent DNA strand.

You could argue that maybe that randomness is part of the grand scheme that makes life determined. Maybe it is. Evolution is certainly more likely to occur if these random events happen.

For determinism to be the explanation, however, there has to be a preceding event that caused the present to exist. That's where the presence of a God or some other entity comes in to my belief system. For me to believe in determinism, I would have to believe that there was some master plan set into motion from one intial decision or idea. There would have to be a start.. a place from which all existence progressed. That gets me into the universe, which I should probably save for another day..

Anyway, there's my further explanation of MY viewpoint.

 

[erm]

I equate random vs determined to the debate of no god vs god.

Now it has meaning. Quanitifiable meanings for 'random' and 'determined' have been given now.

God is still a vague term, but it definitely has at least some limit to its definition. (I would ask, what is god to you, in this theory? But I think I've guessed well enough)

I think there are people who are interested in gaining knowledge and then there are those who just want to pick at others to make themselves seem more knowledgeable.

And differentiating between the two, can't be done through how someone writes their points.

There's a way to say "hmm.. I don't follow. could you explain further"

That's not what I was trying to say. I could follow what was being said.

Maybe a different topic will show what I mean. If someone says "free will", I know what they mean, but the term itself has no sensible meaning. Freedom just doesn't apply as a physical property (it's neither a true nor false statement about "will"). You can give it sensible meaning by redefining the term.

Whether that opinion is true or false is irrelevant, but hopefully it will show what I was trying to say. Another common example of "no sensible meaning", comes up in debates about the nature of the term "existence". Someone might say, existence outside of observation has no sensible meaning. They certainly aren't saying the term is false.

Jibberish also has no sensible meaning, but that is a different analogy. In your case, "no sensible meaning", in reference to the OP's question, until you defined what you meant by some terms.

Other than that, I would just point out that you seem to be discriminating certain events as being because of the "laws of nature", and others to be "random", which I presume means because of no law? If true, it seems strange. For example, our ignorance of certain laws could easily be an explanation. If you are refering to certain Quantum behaviour, then I get it.

 

[Katsuni]

As much as I'd like to claim random, I'm willing to bet only parts of it are. There's been far too many ridiculously coincidental situations where something would occur which only could've occured due to a long string of coincidences before it. It's to the point now that I figure at the very least, if we're given choices in life, then every choice has its' answers as predetermined.

Here's the biggest catch... "I think therefore I am" is a great quote... but how... do yeu proove yeu think?

No seriously, I mean it.

Define THOUGHT.

Often yeu get little pieces of ideas just pop into yeur head pretty much magically. Other times yeu'll be debating something, but yeu know very well yeu've already decided and are just making up excuses now. (A la I'm going to eat that chocolate cake, I just need a way to justify it)

Taken to its' extreeme cases... thought is... nothing. Really, every single thing yeu do for an action is directly and indirectly affected by yeur entire life before that point; a decision is made based off experience, personal morals, yeur soul or whotever yeu want to call it, the various possibilities yeu're aware of, and yeur mind's ability to consider possiblities that may not be already presented (Choose a or b, hmmm I'll take c!)

And then we throw in the reaaaaaally fun stuff for chaos mathematics... stuff like gravitational pull of things trillions of light years away, which have such a miniscule microscopic value due to the effect of gravity being dropped off geometrically, yet it never truly reaches 0. At all points in our lives, we're being affected by the gravitational pull of every single thing in the universe at all times. See a book randomly fall off a shelf for no reason? It probably wasn't a ghost, but it could very well have been a googalplex of stars and planets, dust, etc all forcing a tiny tiny tiny amount of energy on it over a vast time. Normally, this isn't even enough to break the friction barrier, but under extraordinary circumstances, a minor tremor such as a footstep, and many other things, all of these things adding up can cause a book to fall off a shelf, and land on someone's head, getting them mad, throwing a fit, and then scaring yeu for life by some of the things they said, which then goes on to cause yeu to remember it when someone else is having an argument with yeu later in life, and at that point yeu say whot yeu wanted to say back then.

Our whole lives could quite well be classified as cause and effect.

Here's the biggest evidence which's a pain to refute...

I'm going to give yeu a very simple experiment here. Just play along with me here as yeu read please.

I am going to ask yeu to do something. Before I tell yeu whot it is though, I am already going to tell yeu that the answer is 6. Keep in mind, the answer is 6!




Pick a number between 1 and 10.


Alright so here's the problem, I just directly affected yeur choosing of that number. Did yeu pick 6? If so, it's unlikely it was because it's yeur favorite number, but moreso because I told yeu the answer already.

Did yeu pick something OTHER than 6? Very likely it's moreso BECAUSE I told yeu that the answer was 6, and yeu were trying to pick something else just to proove me wrong.

Did yeu pick something not even in the listed range? (I know I personally would have picked 12 just because XD ) Once again though... it turned out I even influenced myself accidentally. I doubled the number of 6 as my first way to pass the supposed restrictions... but the number 6 ended up influencing me anyway.

How yeu react to the given information is based upon a great number of factors. These factors range from yeur personality, yeur mood, how willing yeu are to participate in the experiment, which's also factored into by a great number things... it's to the point that things are so incredably and vastly complex that no mortal mind, no computer, could ever hope to compute all possible ends and values and work them togeather, even ASSUMMING yeu had access to every single piece of information, every single thing that happened in all of history up to that very point... if yeu had ALL the information... yeu could theoretically predict the future. Because although yeur mind is technically capable of making its' own decisions, honestly it can't... it just takes the information it already had, cross referances memories, and even that's only a matter of electrical impulses in the brain. Give someone brain damage, or a neurotoxin which reduces the ability for the synapses to fire, and the answer comes out garbled. In the end, we may not have a single 'original' bone in our body. We are quite likely subject to pre-destined fates of our own design, due to how our mind copes with the information it already had.

The most annoying thing, is a week from now, yeu know very well yeu're going to be stuck on a decision at some point, and if yeu read through this entire post, yeu're going to think back to it, and yeu're going to be stuck with the same delimma... do yeu accept the answer I already gave yeu, do yeu refute it on principle, choose something of yeur own desire and were going to choose that regardless of my statement, or have it influence yeu in other ways? Yeu are almost invariably going to be affected by even thinking about this, and at the same time, that's whot makes yeu capable of learning.

If yeu weren't able to process new information, and apply it, yeu would not be able to 'think'. Even if the process of 'thought' is pretty much just an illusion. If someone knew yeur tendancies, yeur values, morals, entire life history, mood, and whot yeu were thinking at that moment, they could predict every answer yeu would ever give to any given question.

This's how many people who do 'magic' or interrogations work... they are reading yeur body language, yeur subconcious, and seeing how yeu act on things, and then using that information to estimate yeur answer. It's not always 100% correct, but it's often close enough to guide people into acting a certain way, or saying something in particular. If yeu know enough about someone, yeu can manipulate them unmercifully because yeu already know how they'll respond before even they do.

Of course, on the grand scale of the universe as a whole, there's no way for anyone or anything to possibly have access to ALL knowledge from the start of time, AND be able to process it fast enough to be able to apply it. The only thing that could do that would need to be of divine origin, existant outside the realm of physics to be capable of such.

So for the most fun question here...

Do yeu think that god can REALLY see the future? Can he go back and forth in the future and past? Or is it that he can't see the future at all, and is actually just working with an incredably complex perfect algorithm of chaos theory, and is little more than an idiot-savant? Or of course the obvious extra question, does god not even exist, yet somehow the universe works like a clockwork machine despite this?

 

[wildcat]

Who created the equations?

The one who created the random numbers.

 

[Katsuni]

Originally Posted by Haight
Who created the equations?

The one who created the random numbers.

The problem here, is that adding god, or any other divine being doesn't solve this situation at all.

Seriously, think about it, yeu've gone from saying "numbers and physical properties can't be infinite" to "god can be infinite".

There's no reason to believe that the equasions and such can't be infinite in origin to begin with. For all we know god is bound to the same laws of physics we are, go ahead and check each of the miracles performed, every one of them is perfectly within the realm of physical possibility. Sure they're pretty implausible of actually happening by random chance, which implies that there's probably something creating them to happen, but in no case does this mean that god created the universe or is older than it.

All yeu've literally done is said "I don't know how this works, so it's magic". Circular reasoning and flawed logic like that seriously doesn't work too well... I'm all for the attempt to validate the existance of supernatural entities beyond our scope of comprehension... but that's not the way to go about doing it >.>

I just don't see why these physical properties, written as equasions, can't just have 'always' existed. There's no reason they can't have existed even before the universe, but didn't have any constants to input.

It's like saying if I sit down to a computer and start playing a game of sim city, the original of course because it was the best <3, then claiming that the taxation equasion to determine how much monies each person gets taxed was 'created' by me playing as 'god', ignoring the fact that the equasion existed before I even sat down to play the game, and that the equasion existed in fact long before I even knew the game existed.

How do we know for a fact that god or whotever didn't just stumble across a seperate universe that was just dormant, with all its' matter bunched up togeather in a tiny ball, and just needed a nudge into existance, like a kid pouring a big bucket of lego out over the ground? The lego existed before it was built into anything, and the methodology of how the pieces are capable of fitting togeather was already present, at no point does it mean that the rules were 'created' by the builder.

People just seem to have this bizzare concept that NOTHING can be infinite... and then they put a happyface on it and say 'well this one thing can be because it's magic' and expect that one piece of magic to make everything somehow make sense. By being infinite.

The problem isn't that god is or isn't infinite, or that the rules are, or are not, it's that the concept of infinity is beyond mortal comprehension, it's impossible to grasp as a mortal because we ourselves are permenently detached and removed from the mere concept of infinity as it's something we can never truly attain. The only way we can even begin to express it is in abstract terms... and just because 'god' is an abstract term... we get this faulty logic...


Infinity is an abstract term
God is an abstract term
Therefore God is Infinite
Therefore all cases of Infinity, is God

There's no correlation prooving the third and fourth lines there... god is not neccesarily infinite, we just think he is. Infinity is not neccesarily limited ONLY to god and nothing else... we just are incapable of understanding anything else other than magic. And some of us can't even seem to get that right.

Anyways, I just hate faulty arguments... they irk me to no end. If yeu're going to argue the point, don't kill the message. Get yeur facts straight or at least don't make invalid connections with no reasoning behind them.

If yeu REALLY want to try to proove god's existance, seriously, just state that SOMETHING had to trigger the big bang, which therefore means that SOMETHING had to exist BEFORE it. If time existed before it, then there'd be no reason for it to just randomly explode on its' own. If time existed as a result of it, then it couldn't have existed to be the cause. Therefore, in either situation, decay is not possible, as, if time's infinite, then the decay would've been going on indefinately, therefore the big bang couldn't have occured at any set time, whereas if time's not infinite, then it had to've been created, and to be created, it either was created at the time of the big bang itself, as a result, not a cause, or if it were created before it, then we're stuck with 'how did time get created?', which can't be done without resorting to an outside force.

That's yeur best argument for the existance of god, because there's no physical way for the big bang to have set itself off, with, or without time factored into it.

 

[Saslou]

Katsuni

That was by far the best answer i have read.

However, your views have brought to my attention some concern.

Am i only agreeing with you because of my mood, my perception, my experiences etc or am i agreeing with you because you have produced a logical theory??

I am hoping the latter.

 

[Taizic]

I say...it's whatever you want to make of it. Your life, you control how it ends up, and on how you take things. Sooo....randomly determined

 

[wildcat]

The problem here, is that adding god, or any other divine being doesn't solve this situation at all.

Seriously, think about it, yeu've gone from saying "numbers and physical properties can't be infinite" to "god can be infinite".

There's no reason to believe that the equasions and such can't be infinite in origin to begin with. For all we know god is bound to the same laws of physics we are, go ahead and check each of the miracles performed, every one of them is perfectly within the realm of physical possibility. Sure they're pretty implausible of actually happening by random chance, which implies that there's probably something creating them to happen, but in no case does this mean that god created the universe or is older than it.

All yeu've literally done is said "I don't know how this works, so it's magic". Circular reasoning and flawed logic like that seriously doesn't work too well... I'm all for the attempt to validate the existance of supernatural entities beyond our scope of comprehension... but that's not the way to go about doing it >.>

I just don't see why these physical properties, written as equasions, can't just have 'always' existed. There's no reason they can't have existed even before the universe, but didn't have any constants to input.

It's like saying if I sit down to a computer and start playing a game of sim city, the original of course because it was the best <3, then claiming that the taxation equasion to determine how much monies each person gets taxed was 'created' by me playing as 'god', ignoring the fact that the equasion existed before I even sat down to play the game, and that the equasion existed in fact long before I even knew the game existed.

How do we know for a fact that god or whotever didn't just stumble across a seperate universe that was just dormant, with all its' matter bunched up togeather in a tiny ball, and just needed a nudge into existance, like a kid pouring a big bucket of lego out over the ground? The lego existed before it was built into anything, and the methodology of how the pieces are capable of fitting togeather was already present, at no point does it mean that the rules were 'created' by the builder.

People just seem to have this bizzare concept that NOTHING can be infinite... and then they put a happyface on it and say 'well this one thing can be because it's magic' and expect that one piece of magic to make everything somehow make sense. By being infinite.

The problem isn't that god is or isn't infinite, or that the rules are, or are not, it's that the concept of infinity is beyond mortal comprehension, it's impossible to grasp as a mortal because we ourselves are permenently detached and removed from the mere concept of infinity as it's something we can never truly attain. The only way we can even begin to express it is in abstract terms... and just because 'god' is an abstract term... we get this faulty logic...


Infinity is an abstract term
God is an abstract term
Therefore God is Infinite
Therefore all cases of Infinity, is God

There's no correlation prooving the third and fourth lines there... god is not neccesarily infinite, we just think he is. Infinity is not neccesarily limited ONLY to god and nothing else... we just are incapable of understanding anything else other than magic. And some of us can't even seem to get that right.

Anyways, I just hate faulty arguments... they irk me to no end. If yeu're going to argue the point, don't kill the message. Get yeur facts straight or at least don't make invalid connections with no reasoning behind them.

If yeu REALLY want to try to proove god's existance, seriously, just state that SOMETHING had to trigger the big bang, which therefore means that SOMETHING had to exist BEFORE it. If time existed before it, then there'd be no reason for it to just randomly explode on its' own. If time existed as a result of it, then it couldn't have existed to be the cause. Therefore, in either situation, decay is not possible, as, if time's infinite, then the decay would've been going on indefinately, therefore the big bang couldn't have occured at any set time, whereas if time's not infinite, then it had to've been created, and to be created, it either was created at the time of the big bang itself, as a result, not a cause, or if it were created before it, then we're stuck with 'how did time get created?', which can't be done without resorting to an outside force.

That's yeur best argument for the existance of god, because there's no physical way for the big bang to have set itself off, with, or without time factored into it.

A good post, Katsuni. Let us have a closer look at the numbers.

99 - (9 X 9) = 9 + 9

88 - (8 X 8) = 8 + 8 + 8

77 - (7 X 7) = 7 + 7 + 7 + 7

66 - (6 X 6) = 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6

55 - (5 X 5) = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5

44 - (4 X 4) = 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4

33 - (3 X 3) = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3

22 - (2 X 2) = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 etc; a nine two-set is a two-nine-set etc.


Do you see random? I do not see random. The layout is a bit funny, on purpose, so that you can see the non - randomness better. It does not mean that the numbers are not non - random in the first place.

Nobody invented random numbers. There is nothing random in math.
Physics is based on math. If it were not so, it would be rendered nonsense.
Therefore physics is not random.

Big Bang is beyond spacetime, therefore it is beyond physics.
Einstein talked about God, yes. But not of a Christian God. The Jewish God is the same as the Christian God.

What was God to Einstein? What was Eintein concerned about? Physics.
So he needed an outsider, someone who is not, like everything else, dependent on physics.
It did not matter if it was a metaphorical figure, or not. Had he been a Hindu, he would have talked of a Brahman.
God came handy to Einstein, because God created distance. We need distance every time and again, to see better. If you look at too close you see nothing.

In other words, nothing existed before the Big Bang, nothing existed before time. There is nothing beyond spacetime.
Apart from God.
We have no disagreement, Katsuni.

 

[Katsuni]

A good post, Katsuni. Let us have a closer look at the numbers.

99 - (9 X 9) = 9 + 9 etc etc

Do you see random? I do not see random. The layout is a bit funny, on purpose, so that you can see the non - randomness better. It does not mean that the numbers are not non - random in the first place.

Note that this series of numbers is N*11 - N^2 = N*(11-N), which essentially means 11*11 - 11*11 = ...0
10*11 - 10*10 = ... 10*1 (funny how that is)
9*11 - 9*9 = ...9*2

This's no more complex than any other series of numbers to be honest, it's just an odd formula for writing a fairly strange looking ending result.

But yeah, on the point of "Numbers are not nonsensical by default" is true; the easiest way to see that is not by using such an example as this, but by converting to a different base (egypt and many other cultures before ours counted in base-3 instead of base-10). Despite the base 3 being used, the same basic concepts still applied anyway.

Nobody invented random numbers. There is nothing random in math.
Physics is based on math. If it were not so, it would be rendered nonsense.
Therefore physics is not random.

Well... not quite. Pi is a good example of randomness in math. Another one is 'e', used in most biological growth mathematics. They don't seem to make any sense to us, they don't repeat, and they're just... weird. No matter whot base counting system yeu use, assumming the use of only whole numbers.

Some calculations, especially once yeu get down to the quantum level, start going really really... 'interesting' as well. It's not that the math isn't random, it's that regardless of whot the occurance is, there's a consistant method of behaviour which can be reliably plotted out. It may look like a total jumbled mess of insanity by the time yeu've figured it out mathematically, but at least it can be plotted.

Math isn't random in and of itself because it's a system for describing whot is already known. It's like saying "Book" isn't random, because it uses 4 english letters! Well yeah... the reason why it uses 4 english letters is PROBABLY related to the fact that... yeu know... it's an english word >.>;;

Physics doesn't RELY on math so much... physics is just a description of whot already exists; the universe exists whether math and physics does or not. Physics is just a list of observations, and math is the recorded system used to quantify those observations. Nature itself can still be quite chaotic, but does so in a way that makes mathematical sense on the surface.

Whether the universe *IS* chaotic, or runs like clockwork... erm... we don't know. The whole quantum physics thing is showing us that there's some SERIOUSLY screwed up stuff going on... the proof that schrodenger's cat theory is actually TRUE, at least on a molecular level, is kind of mind boggling that something can literally exist in two completely incompatible states simultaniously until they're viewed, is just... gah.

There MAY be an explaination for this, that makes perfect sense, or... maybe there isn't. We don't know yet.

Math doesn't make the universe make sense, it just describes whot we know in a way that we can understand it.

Big Bang is beyond spacetime, therefore it is beyond physics.
Einstein talked about God, yes. But not of a Christian God. The Jewish God is the same as the Christian God.

Not... really. It therefore falls under the category of particle and quantum physics, as the "before the big bang" is actually whot M-theory attempts to describe, and it's still considered to be a form of quantum physics.

Physics just describes that which we witness, if it's possible for things to exist beyond space and time, the study of defining such would still be a branch of physics, though it'd probably be called something different due to existing outside of the boarder of infinity.

What was God to Einstein? What was Eintein concerned about? Physics.
So he needed an outsider, someone who is not, like everything else, dependent on physics.
It did not matter if it was a metaphorical figure, or not. Had he been a Hindu, he would have talked of a Brahman.
God came handy to Einstein, because God created distance. We need distance every time and again, to see better. If you look at too close you see nothing.

Mmm sadly the definition of 'god' here is exactly whot bothers me, one in which the name is used, but invoked not as a 'being of divine origin' but rather just as 'oh screw it I have no clue, it's magic'.

In other words, nothing existed before the Big Bang, nothing existed before time. There is nothing beyond spacetime.
Apart from God.
We have no disagreement, Katsuni.

Well I disagree with alot of the descriptions yeu used XD However, I do find it LIKELY that god could exist before spacetime's origin, there are alternate possibilities as well however, and the definition of 'god' doesn't neccesarily mean an actual INTELLIGENCE. Therefore, I don't believe in god in the traditional sense, but rather as a possible entity that may or may not even be self aware. And may not even be actually an entity, and may not even exist at all. The evidence suggests its' existance as plausible, and even likely, but it does not proove irrifuteably.

For the most part I do agree, I just disagree with the method at which yeu came to yeur conclusion ^.~

 

[INTJ123]

yes I guess it's a bit of both. It's random UNTIL determined(by us), the observer effect of quantum mechanics. The greatest minds of the world are trying to figure this one out and create a unified field theory.

 

[Katsuni]

The greatest minds of the world are trying to figure this one out and create a unified field theory.

I'm not. I was working on the fun aspects of negative gravitational charged matter and energy, and some interesting aspects of dark matter, and was seriously considering taking some high end particle physics courses to do it.

Then... I realized I seriously don't care about the act of actually PROOVING it, I just wanted to play with the concept and theory. The whole messing with the math and number details is just boring.

 

[wildcat]

Note that this series of numbers is N*11 - N^2 = N*(11-N), which essentially means 11*11 - 11*11 = ...0
10*11 - 10*10 = ... 10*1 (funny how that is)
9*11 - 9*9 = ...9*2

This's no more complex than any other series of numbers to be honest, it's just an odd formula for writing a fairly strange looking ending result.

But yeah, on the point of "Numbers are not nonsensical by default" is true; the easiest way to see that is not by using such an example as this, but by converting to a different base (egypt and many other cultures before ours counted in base-3 instead of base-10). Despite the base 3 being used, the same basic concepts still applied anyway.




Well... not quite. Pi is a good example of randomness in math. Another one is 'e', used in most biological growth mathematics. They don't seem to make any sense to us, they don't repeat, and they're just... weird. No matter whot base counting system yeu use, assumming the use of only whole numbers.

Some calculations, especially once yeu get down to the quantum level, start going really really... 'interesting' as well. It's not that the math isn't random, it's that regardless of whot the occurance is, there's a consistant method of behaviour which can be reliably plotted out. It may look like a total jumbled mess of insanity by the time yeu've figured it out mathematically, but at least it can be plotted.

Math isn't random in and of itself because it's a system for describing whot is already known. It's like saying "Book" isn't random, because it uses 4 english letters! Well yeah... the reason why it uses 4 english letters is PROBABLY related to the fact that... yeu know... it's an english word >.>;;

Physics doesn't RELY on math so much... physics is just a description of whot already exists; the universe exists whether math and physics does or not. Physics is just a list of observations, and math is the recorded system used to quantify those observations. Nature itself can still be quite chaotic, but does so in a way that makes mathematical sense on the surface.

Whether the universe *IS* chaotic, or runs like clockwork... erm... we don't know. The whole quantum physics thing is showing us that there's some SERIOUSLY screwed up stuff going on... the proof that schrodenger's cat theory is actually TRUE, at least on a molecular level, is kind of mind boggling that something can literally exist in two completely incompatible states simultaniously until they're viewed, is just... gah.

There MAY be an explaination for this, that makes perfect sense, or... maybe there isn't. We don't know yet.

Math doesn't make the universe make sense, it just describes whot we know in a way that we can understand it.



Not... really. It therefore falls under the category of particle and quantum physics, as the "before the big bang" is actually whot M-theory attempts to describe, and it's still considered to be a form of quantum physics.

Physics just describes that which we witness, if it's possible for things to exist beyond space and time, the study of defining such would still be a branch of physics, though it'd probably be called something different due to existing outside of the boarder of infinity.




Mmm sadly the definition of 'god' here is exactly whot bothers me, one in which the name is used, but invoked not as a 'being of divine origin' but rather just as 'oh screw it I have no clue, it's magic'.





Well I disagree with alot of the descriptions yeu used XD However, I do find it LIKELY that god could exist before spacetime's origin, there are alternate possibilities as well however, and the definition of 'god' doesn't neccesarily mean an actual INTELLIGENCE. Therefore, I don't believe in god in the traditional sense, but rather as a possible entity that may or may not even be self aware. And may not even be actually an entity, and may not even exist at all. The evidence suggests its' existance as plausible, and even likely, but it does not proove irrifuteably.

For the most part I do agree, I just disagree with the method at which yeu came to yeur conclusion ^.~

Conclusion is not about a method.
It exists irrespective of what leads to it.

You know much. And you are a sharp thinker.
The series of numbers I gave is not more complex than any other series of numbers.
That was my exact point.

So we have a disagreement, after all.
I say random numbers do not exist.
Subject does not determine the object.

Every problem I have had, I have solved it with numbers.
Why?
Numbers are immutable.
Why?
They do not random.

 

[EcK]

Matter, dot like determined and absolutely localised objects or wave patterns spread through a discrete space time.

*ironic tone*
/thread solved.

 

[INTJ123]

Conclusion is not about a method.
It exists irrespective of what leads to it.

You know much. And you are a sharp thinker.
The series of numbers I gave is not more complex than any other series of numbers.
That was my exact point.

So we have a disagreement, after all.
I say random numbers do not exist.
Subject does not determine the object.

Every problem I have had, I have solved it with numbers.
Why?
Numbers are immutable.
Why?
They do not random.

random numbers do exist, Pi. Irrational numbers...
Example: Give me the exact circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 meter.

Answer: You can't using mathematics. Math does not equal reality, the equation will tell you the circle never ends(a microscopic gap exists according to math), however in reality we can simply see for ourselves that the gap does not exist.

 

[wildcat]

Matter, dot like determined and absolutely localised objects or wave patterns spread through a discrete space time.

*ironic tone*
/thread solved.

You are more right than you can guess.

They say matter was hot and it exploded.
What nonsense.

A vacuum does not hot.

 

[EcK]

You are more right than you can guess.

They say matter was hot and it exploded.
What nonsense.

A vacuum does not hot.

Actually, i'm probably more right than you can guess.
I'm modest like that.

(you started it!)

 

[wildcat]

random numbers do exist, Pi. Irrational numbers...
Example: Give me the exact circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 meter.

Answer: You can't using mathematics. Math does not equal reality, the equation will tell you the circle never ends(a microscopic gap exists according to math), however in reality we can simply see for ourselves that the gap does not exist.

Exactly.
The circle does not end.
This is what I said in the first place.

God does not have ten fingers.
We do.
Do we see beyond our ten fingers?

110 - (10 X 10) = 11 - (1 X 1)
99 - (9 X 9) = 22 - (2 X 2)

Round and round we go.

 

[Katsuni]

Actually, i'm probably more right than you can guess.
I'm modest like that.

(you started it!)

Bonus points to EcK for PURE AWESOME XD

A vacuum does not hot.

Well 'heat' is just energy in the form of vibration. If it's a "true" vacuum, there's nothing to vibrate, hence no heat is possible.

So we have a disagreement, after all.
I say random numbers do not exist.
Subject does not determine the object.

Every problem I have had, I have solved it with numbers.
Why?
Numbers are immutable.
Why?
They do not random.

As yeu stated before, conclusion is not a method. The conclusion existed from the start; math and numbers are just a method of description of the conclusion. While the numbers themselves may technically not truly be random, that which they attempt to describe may very well be, which in turn can cause the numbers themselves to become a poor attempt at quantifying randomness... randominity... randomosity? Something like that.

There is, however, a case where numbers are never random: inside a computer. Love the term "random number generator" because... a computer can't do so. Every single time yeu see a "random" number from a computer, it's just created using a complex algorithm using a 'randomized' 'seed' to start with, for example the time on a clock, which will change constantly, making each time yeu press the button calculate a different answer. It's not random in the slightest, but if yeu don't know the process it's using the get the number, and don't know the starting input, it's close enough to LOOK random.

Some cases though, where it's forced to generate a random number with speed and limited processing power, this can become apparant that 'random' is anything but... check the RNG on an MMORPG, due to the issues of lag, and thousands of RNG's needing to be considered every single second at times, it's pretty obvious that it's not REALLY trying to hide its' "not really all that random"ness all that well.