Magnus Anderson wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Yes. The uncertainty Principe disallows even such knowledge of a single electron, let alone a whole universe of particles/waves.
Note that the vast majority of the mass we register is not classified in terms of EM - "dark matter" makes up most of our universe. We know nothing about such stuff other than that it gravitates.
The idea that there could be a formula that predicts the state of 90 percent of the universe is thus misguided.
Not even 60% accuracy is possible?
That sounds quite fishy.
Not about the states of every particle. We can know much more about the Newtonean state than we can of the quantum states -
not sure how well versed you are but QM offers a number of truly unlikely truths, such as nonlocal spin entanglement which actually defies newton completely.
Yes, dude, they are. The events directly following the Big Bang violate these law of nature, as does the Big Bang itself.
So, the Big Bang most certainly, this is universally known in physics, preceded the laws of nature.
Couldn't it be the case that they are conflating the laws of nature with their
perception of what the laws of nature are?
Not really, to be fair. We know Newton applies in our current cosmos at the atomic scale and above. This is hard to conflate with something that doesn't apply.
What this means is that different laws used to apply. Which shouldnt be that strange, things can change, for example, four dimensions of spacetime are supposed to have come out of zero dimensions.
What we perceive to be the laws of nature can change but the laws of nature themselves, by definition, cannot.
I see what you mean but I don't think thats truly the case.
I would agree if you said that the fundamental principle of being can not change.
But laws can and do change as physics shows.
(And what preceded the Big Bang? We are trying to find that out as we speak.)
John J. Bannan will tell you that God did.
Who dat
Some other folks tell me that the Big Bang theory is in actuality the Big Bullshit theory.
James S Saint suggested that it has been two black holes colliding. I find it highly plausible that black holes would collide and such a collision would in fact explain a lot of what is now attributed to the Big Bang.
Nevertheless, the situation right after the event was marked by different consistencies than those in the world that resulted from it.
The Big Bang is not generally considered the be part of the universe for that reason. An imperfect but useful metaphor; the event of a birth, including the mothers labour, is not considered part of the human that is being born.
Well, that's strange, considering that
by definition the word "universe" refers to the sum of everything, so there can be nothing before, after or otherwise outside of it.
Google wrote:[A]ll existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos
Wikipedia wrote:The universe is often defined as "the totality of existence", or everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.
Thats the etymological definition, but that doesn't amount to a valid scientific premise; universe as applies in physics is a continuum; this is how mathematics is applied to it.
You could say that the word means something different in philosophy than it does in physics.
It takes some redefinition of the word "universe" to allow for the possibility of things that precede it (as well as concepts such as that of multiverse.)
And indeed it has been redefined a number of times since the term was coined. Because, despite that the word for it exists, the idea of A Whole All isn't possible in terms of pure logic. So there is a word for something which cant exist. We still use this word nowadays but mean something slightly different with it; not all that exists in toto, but: the order of being in which we find ourselves.
The notion of the possibility of contradicting worlds is freed up by relinquishing the idea of a whole-all. (universe in the classical sense, and the word for universe in Netherlands - Heelal)