• Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    Assign a tiny probability that an event will happen each time period and then multiply that by infinite time:Devans99

    That certainly makes sense, but if we're forwarding a logical argument what is the ground for assigning any probability for any arbitrary time period? If it's just an arbitrary assumption why would we expect anyone to give it any weight as something true?

    If time has a start, it must of been caused by something.Devans99

    You have any to assume that nothing can happen acausally. But that's just an arbitrary assumption. There's no argument for it.
  • Mww
    277


    Or.......how to anthropomophize the bejesus out of otherwise perfectly reasonable stuff.

    (Sigh)
  • Devans99
    851
    That certainly makes sense, but if we're forwarding a logical argument what is the ground for assigning any probability for any arbitrary time period? If it's just an arbitrary assumption why would we expect anyone to give it any weight as something true?Terrapin Station

    Any given event has a probability of happening over any fixed time period. If it's a 'natural' event then that probability is non-zero. With infinite time, as soon as the probability is non-zero, the event will/has happened infinite times. So I maintain we can class events, particularly universe creation events, into two classes:

    - Natural events. With infinite time we expect these to occur an infinite number of times. Which is not what we have evidence for (only one Big Bang).
    - Unnatural events. We expect these to occur a singular number of times. Which is what we have evidence for (one Big Bang).
  • Echarmion
    191
    We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time.Devans99

    So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time?

    The "movement" or change of position is from the frame of reference of the observer. The observer, being human, experiences time.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    Any given event has a probability of happening over any fixed time period. If it's a 'natural' event then that probability is non-zero. With infinite time, as soon as the probability is non-zero, the event will/has happened infinite times.Devans99

    There's a serious problem with that theory, then, because an event can happen just once given an infinite amount of time.

    If you want to argue that any event that happens must happen more than once given an infinite amount of time, you'd need an argument as to why that's impossible (why it's impossible to only happen once), and your argument as to why it's impossible can't be because your theory stipulates otherwise.
  • Devans99
    851
    So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time?Echarmion

    As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time.

    There's a serious problem with that per theory, then, because an event can happen just once given an infinite amount of time.Terrapin Station

    Sorry I'm not using 'event' in the strict sense of relativity defines it; what I mean is infinite instances of the same class of 'event'; IE infinite Big Bangs.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    Sorry I'm not using 'event' in the strict sense of relativity defines it; what I mean is infinite instances of the same class of 'event'; IE infinite Big Bangs.Devans99

    I wasn't using the term that way, either. There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time. Again, see what I wrote above if you want to argue that's impossible. (While we continue to ignore the complete arbitrariness of assigning probabilities to this stuff, by the way)
  • Devans99
    851
    I wasn't using the term that way, either. There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time. Again, see what i wrote above if you want to argue that's impossible.Terrapin Station

    Given infinite time and that the Big Bang big is a naturally occurring event, then there must be an infinite number of Big Bangs. Say Big Bangs are caused by random transitory arrangement of quantum fluctuations. If it happens the once; we should expect it to happen infinite times (with infinite time).

    So we have to conclude on evidence that the Big Bang occurred only once so is not a naturally occurring event.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k


    In one ear and out the other.

    Go ahead and repeat the claim, though. Surely that will help.
  • Devans99
    851
    There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite timeTerrapin Station

    Assuming you mean the Big Bang was a naturally occurring event, can you justify your above statement in any way?
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k


    Sure. It's not impossible for there to be just one big bang.

    In order to say it's impossible, we'd need an argument for that, and our argument can't be that we're stipulating something else.
  • Devans99
    851
    If the big bang was a natural event, it would have a non zero probability of occurring over any finite period.

    That means it occurs infinite times over an infinite period.

    So it is impossible for there to be only one 'naturally occurring' Big Bang (if time is infinite).
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    If the big bang was a natural event, it would have a non zero probability of occurring over any finite period.Devans99

    Based on what?
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k


    Put it this way. If I were to say, "Between the last message I posted and this one--a finite time period, there was zero probability of a big bang occurring," we could know that I'm wrong by . . . . ? Well, by what?
  • Devans99
    851
    Put it this way. If I were to say, "Between the last message I posted and this one--a finite time period, there was zero probability of a big bang occurring," we could know that I'm wrong by . . . . ? Well, by what?Terrapin Station

    If Big Bangs occurs naturally, then there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang in any finite time period.

    If we extend that over the life time of an infinite in time universe:

    (non zero probability of big bang per time period) * (life of universe) = (number of big bangs)
    0.000001% * ∞ = ∞

    If there had been a infinite number of Big Bangs, I'd warrant the astronomers would of detected something
  • Echarmion
    191
    As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time.Devans99

    So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement?
  • Devans99
    851
    So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement?Echarmion

    Yes. In two dimensions: If the y axis is time and the x axis is space, then movement along the x axis represents movement at the speed of light wholly in the spacial direction. The temporal co-ordinate is always zero in this case.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    If Big Bangs occurs naturally, then there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang in any finite time period.Devans99

    Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it?
  • Devans99
    851
    Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it?Terrapin Station

    We have to say that the qualifier 'natural' applies to certain time periods. For an event to be natural within a time period; it has to have a non-zero possibility of occurring in that time period.

    So what I am saying is that the Big Bang is a natural event for all time periods of the universe's infinite history; hence there must be infinite Big Bangs.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    We have to say that the qualifier 'natural' applies to certain time periods. For an event to be natural within a time period; it has to have a non-zero possibility of occurring in that time period.Devans99

    You're not answering what the probability is based on. I don't know how many times I have to ask that until you'd attempt to explain what the probability is based on.
  • Devans99
    851


    - If an event is non-natural in a time period, then it has a 0% chance of occurring in that time period.
    - If an event is natural in a time period, then it has a non-zero chance of occurring in that time period.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    - If an event is non-natural in a time period, then it has a 0% chance of occurring in that time period.
    - If an event is natural in a time period, then it has a non-zero chance of occurring in that time period.
    Devans99

    That's fine.

    Now, what is the probability based on? We say that x has probability n. (And whether n is zero or non-zero changes the classification per the above.) How is n derived?
  • Devans99
    851
    What is the probability based on?Terrapin Station

    You have me confused; you will have to make that question more specific.
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k


    We're not just assigning probabilities randomly, are we?
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    Like roll two dice, and if we get two 5s, we assign "zero," if we roll two 1s, we assign "0.5" etc.?
  • Devans99
    851
    We're not just assigning probabilities randomly, are we?Terrapin Station


    No, but all we need to be able to deduce that infinite Big Bangs occurred is to assign a non-zero probability of a Big Bang occurring in a tiny fraction of the universe's infinite history; that is sufficient to ensure infinite Big Bangs.

    The actual probability numbers do not matter; all that matter is if the probability is zero (Big Bang must be a non-natural event) or non-zero (Big Bang must be naturally occurring and infinite in occurrence).
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    No, but all we need to be able to deduce that infinite Big Bangs occurred is to assign a non-zero probability of a Big Bang occurring in a tiny fraction of the universe's infinite history; that is sufficient to ensure infinite Big Bangs.

    The actual probability numbers do not matter; all that matter is if the probability is zero (Big Bang must be a non-natural event) or non-zero (Big Bang must be naturally occurring and infinite in occurrence).
    Devans99

    If I say that the probability of the Big Bang occurring today is zero and you say it's not, then we need a way to determine which one of us is correct.

    Whether we assign the term "natural" or "unnatural" is irrelevant, because per your comments above, those terms only refer to whether there is a non-zero probability in any arbitrary finite time period of x happening or not. So there's no need to even bother with the terms.
  • Devans99
    851
    If I say that the probability of the Big Bang occurring today is zero and you say it's not, then we need a way to determine which one of us is correct.Terrapin Station

    What I say implies infinite natural Big Bangs (with infinite time). We can tell from astronomy that there is only one Big Bang so empirical evidence is in my favour when concluding that the Big Bang is singular and non-natural.

    I think the natural/non-natural definition I gave in terms of probability are helpful definitions; not sure how else you could mathematically define them?
  • Terrapin Station
    6.8k
    What I say implies infinite natural Big Bangs (with infinite time). We can tell from astronomy that there is only one Big Bang so empirical evidence is in my favour when concluding that the Big Bang is singular and non-natural.Devans99

    You're only using "natural"/"non-natural" to refer to probability right?
  • Devans99
    851
    You're only using "natural"/"non-natural" to refer to probability right?Terrapin Station

    And to the cause of the Big Bang. Natural would be quantum fluctuations or such. Non-natural would be God.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.