@Draug

That doesn't seem unreasonable.

@Doom

Neither. I don't like your idea for two reasons:

1) It seems to violate the Cosmological Principle, which, based on my limited understanding, seems solid.
2) Heat death seems more likely than the universe falling back on it's self. Entropy alone seems to guarantee this.

I don't like my idea for two reasons:

1) I made it up by the seat of my pants
2) At some point, mass would simply become too dense and would reach a singularity. I see no way that they could remain distinct being that close.

So, where does that leave us. Well, so far the best explanation is the Big Bang. I don't think it's great, personally, but it's the best we got. Now, there are two things that can happen from here: we find out what set off the big bang, or we disprove it. Since my daily actions aren't actually influence by the BB, I'm content on waiting. In any case, neither scenario will prove determinism, and one could very easily reject it.

@KoD, Miro isn't a native English speaker. You need to cut a little slack there.

As far as time be one way, entropy is a move towards chaos and heat death. It is a one way movement, therefore "time", the unit of measurement, is one way as well.

im on a phone right now, so im not bothering to capitalize words

@miro

the evidence i showed earlier

@abge

well, as a philosopher, im not going to give up on a philosophical concept because the physics dont work unless i have another philosophical concept that works as well. the issue i have with the idea you made up is that time needs to go in both directions if it is a straight line of time, wheras a cycle of time does not need that. after seriously giving thought to your idea (and the other idea that i know) i still believe in cyclic universe theory, because apparently time cannot work backwards, and in the other theoretical idea i had, there has to be a beginning still.

@draugnar

english is really miro's 2nd language? thats pretty impressive in that case.

Yes, Miro is German IIRC. Ya' gotta be careful chastising people on here for their grammar and spelling as this is truly an international community. We have a global contingent that includes South America, most of Europe and the Med (Germany, Greece, England, etc.), at least one person from Hong Kong, and the site is run by Kestas, an Aussie.

Not to mention south of the Mason-Dixon line where everyone speaks English as their second and only language : )

@Doom

Can you please explain why it isn't better to create a philosophy based on the empirical evidence we have and then change it when the evidence changes? I seriously don't understand the merit to your method.

Hey now, us speaks goodly Amar'cin way down har in the South. Watch whatcha all is talkin', K?

@Doom

Now i read the article twice. I didn´t found an evidence sorry. Could you point it out clearly for me, even if i overread it?

article=thread ;-)

@abge

I want to be fully right, not partially right. I want to know all the answers, simply for my own self satisfaction, not know theories, most of which are true, but some of which aren't.

@Miro

This is on page 2:

Well I'm skipping through physics theories in favor of philosophical theories. So for instance, I believe in determinism because it makes sense logically, and I'm ignoring QM because I do not believe that physics theories supercede philosophical theories, because physics theories are subject to change. From determinism I believe that the universe must either have a creator that determined everything, or was always here. I have ruled out a creator because I believe that everything in the universe can be explained, and a creator simply bypasses that rule. Thus I believe in an infinitely long cycle of universes.

@Doom

That is understandable, but don't you think you maximize your possibility of being right by observing the natural world?

At what point do you stop relying on philosophy and start relying on physics? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't jump off a cliff because you think the theory of gravity could be wrong. That is an instance where physics supersedes your philosophy. Where do you draw the line?

@abge

As far as answers to the universe, philosophy comes first, but that's about it. My morality is based on myself, not any particular moral philosophy. My political views are based on my morality, and none of this is philosophical. Only with the things I care about most, such as the nature of the universe, do I actually use philosophy for.

Also, I agree that observing the natural world is generally more accurate, but as far as the universe is concerned, only pure logic based on a very strong laws of physics will allow us to find the answer for sure. We have a long way to go to get to that point.

As such, I think that only philosophy can even come close to answering the universe's biggest questions at this point.

@doom

"From determinism I believe that the universe must either have a creator that determined everything, or was always here"

You can´t make a logical conclusion about thinks that were not verified or falsified.
The "Law of excluded middle" doesn´t apply on assertions of unprooven theorys, you have to start with evidence.
This is the philosophical standpoint to this issue, as i said before. That´s why the whole question is not a logical

Sorry doom you where wrong about logical rationalism. Have you studied philosophy? I did for one year, i even can remember the logic seminars with Prof. Gabriel :-)

@Miro

I don't understand what you mean.

That´s a pitty :-(

Ok, i try again:
"From determinism I believe that the universe must either have a creator that determined everything, or was always here"

It is no either-or here, both assertions are unprooven for beeing true, so it´s not possible to say neither god or allways-existing, its absolutly unlogical to do so.

either* instead of neither

How is it unproven? Logically, a determined universe must have been here infinitely long, or have started with a creator of higher power. How can you argue otherwise?

"Also, I agree that observing the natural world is generally more accurate, but as far as the universe is concerned, only pure logic based on a very strong laws of physics will allow us to find the answer for sure. We have a long way to go to get to that point."

So, what's the problem? QM is very strong. The Big Bang is pretty strong. How strong do they need to be?

Indisputable enough that there aren't several seemingly realistic physics theories going on at once.

Completely off-topic interjection, but I'm a Louisianian with perfectly good speaking capacities. ;)

To contribute (and I use that word rather loosely), I tend to believe in the idea of freewill, but I completely confess to lacking any sort of expertise on the subject. What I do know is that I seem to make plenty of choices each and every day. Perhaps it's really all determined by an infinite causal chain of events, I don't know. But for all my practical considerations, I see little difference between them: I still am faced with a dilemma with each decision that comes my way. (I do understand the moral implications of all human action being part of an uncontrollable causal chain, but I'm rather amoral myself, so moral implications have little practical considerations with me.)

I must say, though, this has been a fascinating and enlightening discussion. I hope my thoughts didn't drag down the content too much. ;)

@Eden

Not at all; it's nice to get a new voice in here.

I think what you're saying has merit. Even if it is deterministic, it's almost a distinction without a difference. We *feel* as though we're making choices and it seems as though others and the world react to those choices. Even if the Universe was deterministic, would it make any difference in our lives?

@President

No, they are good thoughts. While I completely believe in hard determinism, I will quickly admit that it doesn't really matter when we think about it in the context of our lives. Even if we are determined, it's not like you know what you are going to do ahead of time. I do my best to specifically not live my life around determinism, as I think that that would be really bad for myself and for the people around me.

@abge

You said it first.

@doom

"How is it unproven? Logically, a determined universe must have been here infinitely long, or have started with a creator of higher power"

No it is not, it would be if BOTH assertions are true or false.
You can say: "My hair is either blond or it is not blond" in this case you have evidence, your hair.
You can not say:"If i would travel back in time my actions either could change the future, or already embeded in the future so i change nothing." In this case BOTH assertions are neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so it is no true conlusion at all.

@Miro

That's true, but my point was that ONE of them must be true. I never said I had the evidence to prove which one was and which one wasn't.

I'll be on later tonight to continue this discussion.