Scientist can look millions of years in past... But what about the future?

reply to post by AllIsOne


That all changed when we discovered quantum theory, though. The clockwork universe wasn't as possible as it had seemed to be.

AllIsOne
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

Maybe this helps:

[align=center]We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[3][/align]

en.wikipedia.org...'s_demon

That's interesting to consider. It's basically a logical explanation of possibility based on a standardize theory of what we presently know best.

AAC

Bedlam
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

That all changed when we discovered quantum theory, though. The clockwork universe wasn't as possible as it had seemed to be.

Yes, we discovered QT, but the planets and stars still move according to Newtonian law. Where does QT apply?

AllIsOne

Bedlam
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

That all changed when we discovered quantum theory, though. The clockwork universe wasn't as possible as it had seemed to be.

Yes, we discovered QT, but the planets and stars still move according to Newtonian law. Where does QT apply?

When you try to state that by knowing the current state of a system, you can derive all future states and predict the outcome with precision forever. That seemed possible at one time, if farfetched, but you can't do it in practice.

In specific, " it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom" ain't happening.

Bedlam

AllIsOne

Bedlam
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

That all changed when we discovered quantum theory, though. The clockwork universe wasn't as possible as it had seemed to be.

Yes, we discovered QT, but the planets and stars still move according to Newtonian law. Where does QT apply?

When you try to state that by knowing the current state of a system, you can derive all future states and predict the outcome with precision forever. That seemed possible at one time, if farfetched, but you can't do it in practice.

In specific, " it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom" ain't happening.

edit on 7-3-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

So you're saying that causality doesn't apply?

Lucid Lunacy
So what's the best replacement theory in your mind if not BBT?

Creation. Yes I know that won't be popular here (and I am fine with the insults, bashing, etc... that always follows), but science cannot tell me where the matter and energy came from that caused the big bang. It had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere in my mind is from GOD. Until science can prove where it came from and how it was CREATED, they too are going on faith based principles/ideology just like I am. My beliefs always bring the same arguments, "well where did GOD come from?", "prove GOD exists!". Those two questions I cannot answer or prove, I can only believe and have faith, but science hasn't answered either question, yet are believed, printed in text books, indoctrinated BILLIONS of people, etc... so I ask "well where did the matter/energy/elements/and stuff come from?", "prove the BBT exists and is THE way everything came to be!"

Why not have science just teach people/students, THEY DON'T KNOW where we actually come from and teach the BBT as ONE way we possibly came to be, not THE way we came to be?

Take a watermelon. What if I theorized/proposed the inside of a watermelon is actually a very bright blue color, but as soon as you cut/pierce the green skin, the inside immediately turns red. Can you prove me wrong? Assume I am right? Just believe I am right because I said it is so?

Also, just for more bashing or to give you guys more of my personal position. If science does one day PROVE the BBT to be correct, that is fine, it still doesn't disprove GOD and his creating what was needed for the BBT to occur.

Bedlam

IroncladFT
OK, so again confused.

But your saying if someone is standing on that planet looking back at earth, they too are viewing a planet just as old as the universe too??? So both planets are the same age, even though from one your looking into the past and the other your looking at a place equal to your own?...

Ok. Try this.

Let's take out all the in-between steps and postulate this, to eliminate a lot of the more confusing parts.

You have an empty universe. I wave my magic ring, and presto! Two star systems are created, exactly 10 light years apart, both with industrial civilizations capable of building and using light telescopes.

In star system Alpha, Alice builds a telescope. It's good for looking around at her neighbors, but at night, there's nothing. No stars, nothing. It's just dark.

In star system Bravo, Bob builds a telescope. He's got the same thing. He can look at the next door neighbor's nest for the tentacle action, but there's nothing in the night sky.

Ten years pass.

Suddenly one night, Alice sees a star blink into being. She just saw my creation of the universe 10 years ago, but it took 10 years for the light of Bravo to crawl across the intervening space. Until then, Bravo was outside her observable universe.

That same night, Bob's outside watching the neighbors make new octopuses, and in HIS night sky, he sees a new star appear. It's Alpha. It took 10 years for the light to cross the space between them.

When Alice looks at Bravo, she sees what's happening 10 years ago, because it took the image 10 years to get to her. It's not what's happening "now", if you can postulate a "now". If Bravo blows up "now", she won't know for 10 years, because she can't see it for that long.

But it's the same from Bob's perspective. He sees what's happening at Alpha 10 years ago as well.

In fact, if Bob had a physically impossible telescope that was able to see Alice, right after he saw Alpha appear, he could watch Alice grinding the lenses for her telescope. And the same situation would work the other way. Alice would see Bob making HIS telescope. Even though it happened 10 years before.

But can we PROVE light is a constant at those distances, in other galaxies, that might have totally different laws? Aren't we ASSUMING light measured on earth is exactly the same BILLIONS of miles away. Wouldn't "stuff" get in the way at some point to throw off our calculations? I mean, there is no way you can convince me NOTHING passes in the way of something BILLIONS of miles away. It's not a clear shot to that point is it?

CaptainBeno
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation

 

No one needs you to Answer this... And you're not funny. If you think that my intellect is in question, I would gladly love to debate you on any topic of your choice. If I lose, I will close my account to ATS. Please try me. And no, you can't debate with silly memes.

Oh dear? Bad use of grammar and incorrect use of capitals. I don't think I would want to argue with a chap like yourself.

You're far more intellectual than me.

Please accept my apologies.

Now, can we move on and finish berating your post?

Those with fast minds tend to type just as fast.

Those who deliberate over every nuance of a written passage, tend to have much slower minds and are more concerned about appearance then substance.

Korg.

AllIsOne
So you're saying that causality doesn't apply?

I'm saying that the uncertainty principle applies. You can't predict the motions of "the tiniest atom". The larger collection of them you have, the better your chances of prediction, since it's all statistics.

However, the universe might be a big statistical fluctuation.

IroncladFT
But can we PROVE light is a constant at those distances, in other galaxies, that might have totally different laws? Aren't we ASSUMING light measured on earth is exactly the same BILLIONS of miles away. Wouldn't "stuff" get in the way at some point to throw off our calculations? I mean, there is no way you can convince me NOTHING passes in the way of something BILLIONS of miles away. It's not a clear shot to that point is it?

The speed of light appears in a lot of other systems - if it were varying all over the place depending on where you were, a lot of things either wouldn't work quite the same or would leave tell-tale indications. The spectra of stars at a distance are what we expect to see. They would not be if c varied wildly.

Not only that, we understand what light is, you'd have to find some reason to believe that the permeability and permittivity of space was different somewhere else, or you'd have to invoke some magic way that light isn't light if it's coming from a distance. There's not any really good reason to think that.

"Stuff" in the way won't change things in a way to throw off our calculations, either, unless you're going to postulate big blocks of magic glass or something floating in space.

Bedlam

AllIsOne
So you're saying that causality doesn't apply?

I'm saying that the uncertainty principle applies. You can't predict the motions of "the tiniest atom". The larger collection of them you have, the better your chances of prediction, since it's all statistics.

However, the universe might be a big statistical fluctuation.

" And as for QM, it only describes behavior. Just because it can describe the behavior without reference to causes does not mean that there are no causes anymore than the fact that I can explain how the English language works without reference to the history of the language would imply that there was no history to the English language".

theosophical.wordpress.com...

Take a watermelon. What if I theorized/proposed the inside of a watermelon is actually a very bright blue color, but as soon as you cut/pierce the green skin, the inside immediately turns red. Can you prove me wrong? Assume I am right? Just believe I am right because I said it is so?

reply to post by IroncladFT


A scientist would want to know the principle behind the change of color. If after countless experiments they can't find a cause for the color change, there was never one to start with. Hence the watermelon is always red inside, unless it "magically" changes color … ;-)

reply to post by AllIsOne

However, as physicist John Barrow has noted, British philosopher Roger Boscovich had essentially the same idea in 1758 [Barrow2007, pg. 63].

Now, if the law of forces were known, and the position, velocity and direction of all the points at any given instant, it would be possible for a mind of this type to forsee all the necessary subsequent motions and states, and to predict all the phenomena that necessarily followed from them.

These notions prevailed until the twentieth century, when two developments spelled their doom. The first was the discovery and development of quantum mechanics. One of the principles of this theory is that any physical system is described by an abstract wave function, and the probability that it will be in a certain position or exhibit a certain behavior is given by the squared amplitude of the wave function. In other words, nature, at its fundamental level, is probabilistic in a certain precise sense. Another well-known way in which this probabilistic nature is exhibited is Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle." This principle states that the uncertainty (in a certain precise sense) in the position of an object times the uncertainty (in a certain precise sense) in the momentum of an object (momentum = mass times velocity) must always exceed a certain minimal value. For example, if the position of an electron is given to high precision, then its momentum cannot be known to high precision, and vice versa.

A nice article covering it in layman's terms...

Wouldn't "stuff" get in the way at some point to throw off our calculations? I mean, there is no way you can convince me NOTHING passes in the way of something BILLIONS of miles away. It's not a clear shot to that point is it?

reply to post by IroncladFT


It was shocking to learn that the universe is mostly void of any matter that would absorb photons. Of course not all photons emitted by a star will make it to your retina, that's part of why you see flickering and not a truly continues light source, but surprisingly most will make it. Space is very vast and very empty.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Or, as my Dad put it a long time ago when I was wee, "Hundreds of years ago, a photon left the surface of that star, traveled through space countless millions of miles, then went through the iris of your eye like a shooter hitting an impossibly small target, and you saw it. How cool is that?"

reply to post by Bedlam


Thank you for that.

Again, even QM events have a cause. As far as I know QM simply doesn't deal with that aspect. If you knew cause & effect of all matter in the universe you can know the future :-)

reply to post by Bedlam


Your Dad is a wise man … ;-)

Bedlam

AllIsOne
So you're saying that causality doesn't apply?

I'm saying that the uncertainty principle applies. You can't predict the motions of "the tiniest atom". The larger collection of them you have, the better your chances of prediction, since it's all statistics.

However, the universe might be a big statistical fluctuation.

i think it's actually a simulation.

reply to post by IroncladFT


Well you had a member here clearly show you the science that demonstrated much of what you had said was in error..

Please humble yourself and recognize it.

As for the Biblical matters. I am not going to argue there isn't a Creative force, but I will argue against what I think you most likely mean when you represent such a force. Which is to say an Abrahamic god. That god, and that Bible, is clearly unfounded.

Lucid Lunacy
Well you had a member here clearly show you the science that demonstrated much of what you had said was in error..

Please humble yourself and recognize it.

As for the Biblical matters. I am not going to argue there isn't a Creative force, but I will argue against what I think you most likely mean when you represent such a force. Which is to say an Abrahamic god. That god, and that Bible, is clearly unfounded.

edit on 7-3-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

I am humbled by what science CAN prove, I find it amazing and wonderful. I'm just not sold on what it has yet to answer, or has answered using conjecture, then teaching it as fact to our fellow man.

As for the Creative Force you speak of vs. the Biblical GOD, is there really a difference between the two besides MAN'S take on who/what it really is? I would think they are one in the same, but as man always does, we added our own twist and our personal KNOW IT ALL attitudes, so the TRUTH may have gotten lost in the battle of ego's.