eternity made simple....

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…mmmmm, i dunno Andrew, what is the big bang theory?
.…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

“…the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some FINITE TIME in the past, and continues to expand to this day….”(my emphasis)

-so it is the big bang t ...[text shortened]... r example, the Earth's weather is chaotic but it is still controlled by the laws of physics).[/b]

The big bang theory does NOT imply that the universe came into existence as a "result of" a “CHANCE occurrence”. Also, it may have been “chaotic” in the sense that it would have been difficult if not totally impossible to predict in advance where each galaxy etc would end up in relation to each other but it definitely was NOT “uncontrolled” because it was “controlled” as it is now by the laws of physics -you could say it was a kind of “controlled chaos” just as it is still controlled chaos today (for example, the Earth's weather is chaotic but it is still controlled by the laws of physics).
------------------------------hammy--------------------------

So why were the laws of physics the way they were? Was there a reason?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The big bang theory does NOT imply that the universe came into existence as a "result of" a “CHANCE occurrence”. Also, it may have been “chaotic” in the sense that it would have been difficult if not totally impossible to predict in advance where each galaxy etc would end up in relation to each other but it definitely was NOT “uncontrolled” because it -------------------

So why were the laws of physics the way they were? Was there a reason?

For those laws of physics that are NOT deducible from higher more general laws of physics -no.
These ones are just brute facts.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
For those laws of physics that are NOT deducible from higher more general laws of physics -no.
These ones are just brute facts.

But for you there is no reason why those laws (brute facts) happen to be the way they are? They just ARE.

And for you also it's not just chance that Big bang went the way it did because it was controlled by these laws.

Even so , for you the actual laws (brute facts) could have presumably been anything because there is no reason for them to not have been. ?

Have I understood?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But for you there is no reason why those laws (brute facts) happen to be the way they are? They just ARE.

And for you also it's not just chance that Big bang went the way it did because it was controlled by these laws.

Even so , for you the actual laws (brute facts) could have presumably been anything because there is no reason for them to not have been. ?

Have I understood?

….But for you there is no reason why those laws (brute facts) happen to be the way they are? They just ARE.

And for you also it's not just chance that Big bang went the way it did because it was controlled by these laws.
..… (my emphasis)

Correct and correct.

….Even so , for you the actual laws (brute facts) could have presumably been anything because there is no reason for them to not have been. ?
..…

-interesting question 🙂

-could it be that those brute facts couldn’t have been anything other that what they are AND the fact that “brute facts couldn’t have been anything other than what they are” be a “brute fact” ?

-of course, that would mean you could give the very trivial ‘reason’ why a brute fact is the way it is for you could say that it “couldn’t have been anything other than what it is” and claim that that is a “reason” and thus this is a contradiction of the notion of a “brute fact” because, by definition, you are not supposed to be able to give a “reason” for a brute fact. But that would be a cheat because the fact would remain that just to say “it is the way it is because it couldn’t be different” doesn’t explain why so and thus is not really a PROPER “explanation”.

You may also think that the notion of “brute facts couldn’t have been anything other than what they are” would imply that there couldn’t be any true randomness like in quantum events because, although if you say “each quantum event couldn’t have been anything other than what it was” makes it sound like it isn't random, this does not imply that it was the way it was for a “reason” or a “cause” nor does it imply it is predictable thus it doesn’t imply it couldn’t have been truly random -it just couldn’t have been anything other that what it was ( which sounds like a contradiction but it isn’t! )

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….But for you there is no reason why those laws (brute facts) happen to be the way they are? They just ARE.

And for you also it's not just chance that Big bang went the way it did because it was controlled by these laws.
..… (my emphasis)

Correct and correct.

….Even so , for you the actual laws (brute facts) could have presumably ...[text shortened]... have been anything other that what it was ( which sounds like a contradiction but it isn’t! )

I didn't really get that ...but it is complex. My point was that the laws of physics are the way they are. So if they are brute facts and there is no reason why they are the way they are then presumably they could have been anything at all (just like a quantum event could be anything).

If that's true (and the laws of physics controlled the big bang) then the big bang must have logically been a chance event (because the laws of physics could have been anything -or maybe not have existed at all)

This also begs the question of whether quantum random events ( if they are) could stop being random at any moment - since there would be no reason for them not to. Or maybe they might just stop and the whole universe would just freeze or something.

Since you say that they are uncaused events - what would stop this from happening? If there is nothing causing them to happen could they stop tomorrow? If not why not?

Anyway , do you think the laws of physics could have been any different? Are they the way they are by chance?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I didn't really get that ...but it is complex. My point was that the laws of physics are the way they are. So if they are brute facts and there is no reason why they are the way they are then presumably they could have been anything at all (just like a quantum event could be anything).

If that's true (and the laws of physics controlled the big bang ...[text shortened]... think the laws of physics could have been any different? Are they the way they are by chance?

The ancient Human was enjoying the sunshine minding his own business -and suddenly along came the clouds. It was surely a miracle, for all of a sudden the sun was hidden. After a while it started raining -another miracle. The ancient Human applied to the saman, and he took a wise explanation: these miracles were indeed pure signs of God and they were not the way they were by chance😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The ancient Human was enjoying the sunshine minding his own business -and suddenly along came the clouds. It was surely a miracle, for all of a sudden the sun was hidden. After a while it started raining -another miracle. The ancient Human applied to the saman, and he took a wise explanation: these miracles were indeed pure signs of God and they were not the way they were by chance😵

...........and your point was exactly...??

🙄

Originally posted by knightmeister
I didn't really get that ...but it is complex. My point was that the laws of physics are the way they are. So if they are brute facts and there is no reason why they are the way they are then presumably they could have been anything at all (just like a quantum event could be anything).

If that's true (and the laws of physics controlled the big bang ...[text shortened]... think the laws of physics could have been any different? Are they the way they are by chance?

….My point was that the laws of physics are the way they are. So if they are brute facts and there is no reason why they are the way they are then presumably they could have been anything at all (just like a quantum event could be anything).

.…

I think your confusion here is this:
you assume that if something is a brute fact B then it could have been something other than what it is -and that’s where you logically go wrong!
and here is the most critical question of this post:

How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact C that it couldn’t be anything other than what it was?

Note that, just as I implied in by last posts, such a brute fact C would NOT really be a PROPER “explanation” of brute fact B ( because just to say “it couldn’t have been anything other than what it is” doesn’t explain why so ) thus this doesn’t contradict the notion that fact B is a BRUTE fact.

Also note that BECAUSE it could be the case that it is ALSO a brute fact C that it couldn’t be anything other than what brute fact B was, the mere fact that fact B is a BRUTE fact does NOT imply that brute fact B came about by a CHANCE or RANDOM event EVEN if that brute fact B itself is about random events! (such as quantum events).

….If that's true (and the laws of physics controlled the big bang) then the big bang must have LOGICALLY been a chance event (because the laws of physics could have been anything -or maybe not have existed at all) ..… (me emphasis)

No it doesn’t! one does NOT LOGICALLY follow from the other for the reason I just explained.
If a law of physics is a brute fact then it does NOT LOGICALLY follow from that fact that it could have been something other than what it is.

…This also BEGS the question of whether quantum random events ( if they are) could stop being random at any moment
.… (me emphasis)

No it doesn’t! how do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact that quantum events can NOT ever be nor have ever been anything other than random?

Note that this would NOT really be a PROPER “explanation” for the brute fact that quantum events are random ( because just to say “it couldn’t have been anything other than what it is” doesn’t explain why so ) thus this doesn’t contradict the notion that it is a fact that is a BRUTE fact that quantum events are random.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….My point was that the laws of physics are the way they are. So if they are brute facts and there is no reason why they are the way they are then presumably they could have been anything at all (just like a quantum event could be anything).

.…

I think your confusion here is this:
you assume that if something is a brute fact B ...[text shortened]... ’t contradict the notion that it is a fact that is a BRUTE fact that quantum events are random.[/b]

How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact C that it couldn’t be anything other than what it was?
-----------hammy-------------------------------------

I must say that I really am quite surprised by this response. I would have expected that a man (or woman?) of your reasoning would have spotted that all you have done by introducing "brute fact C" is simply pushed the problem one step further back.

The question still remains begging. Could brute fact C have been anything other than what it was? Why does brute fact C exist anyway? Why does it support brute fact B and force brute fact B(the laws of physics) to be the way it is? There can be no explanation for brute fact C (if it is causeless) and if it is then how can it be said to have been inevitable that brute fact C would enforce brute fact B , and therefore brute fact B would be a chance state of affairs.

All in all it seems a very shabby state of affairs and an entirely unsatisfactory "solution". You have just dug one hole to fill another.

This is your worst response for some time. You simply just haven't thought it through.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact C that it couldn’t be anything other than what it was?
-----------hammy-------------------------------------

I must say that I really am quite surprised by this response. I would have expected that a man (or woman?) of your reasoning would have spotted that all you have done by introducing "brute fa

This is your worst response for some time. You simply just haven't thought it through.

….Could brute fact C have been anything other than what it was?
.…

no

….Why does brute fact C exist anyway?
..…

Now if the “why” question could be answered then it wouldn’t be a BRUTE fact -get it?
-by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

…Why does it support brute fact B and force brute fact B (the laws of physics) to be the way it is?
.…

You are asking the “why” question again -by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

…There can be no explanation for brute fact C
..…

Exactly! -which is why it would be a BRUTE fact!

….(if it is causeless).…

But there would NOT be an explanation ANYWAY if it was a BRUTE fact -right?

This debunks the rest of your post and and my last post debunks your claim that such brute facts imply that “they could have been different” and that it implies they were made by "chance".

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Could brute fact C have been anything other than what it was?
.…

no

….Why does brute fact C exist anyway?
..…

Now if the “why” question could be answered then it wouldn’t be a BRUTE fact -get it?
-by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

…Why does it support brute fact B and force brute fact B ...[text shortened]... ts imply that “they could have been different” and that it implies they were made by "chance".

You are asking the “why” question again -by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

---------hammy-----------------------------

But that doesn't invalidate the question. It's important to ask it in order to point out that there is no reason why brute fact C or B are the way they are. And if there is no reason then it must be by chance.

If you admit there is no reason why a brute fact is the way it is (eg the laws of physics being set) then it makes no sense to say that it was inevitable they were the way they were - why? - because there is nothing "fixing" them or causing them to be that way.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You want quantum events to be random and uncaused but the brute facts of physics to be inevitable even though they also have no cause (according to you)

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You want quantum events to be random and uncaused but the brute facts of physics to be inevitable even though they also have no cause (according to you)

You yourself made a whole thread about the fact that it is inevitable that at least one brute fact exists. Surely the fact that it is inevitable is a brute fact too and an inevitable brute fact at that? Anybody who has cake and doesn't eat it should stop baking cakes!

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are asking the “why” question again -by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

---------hammy-----------------------------

But that doesn't invalidate the question. It's important to ask it in order to point out that there is no reason why brute fact C or B are the way they are. And if there is no reason then it must be by ...[text shortened]... ute facts of physics to be inevitable even though they also have no cause (according to you)

….You are asking the “why” question again -by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

---------hammy-----------------------------

But that doesn't invalidate the question.
..…

Yes it does! How can a question of “why” be logically valid when the “why” you are referring to BY DEFINITION cannot logically exist?

….It's important to ask it in order to point out that there is no reason why brute fact C or B are the way they are. And if there is no reason then it must be by chance.
..…

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise:
How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact C that brute fact B couldn’t be anything other than what it was? -therefore, no “chance” implied by a brute fact.

…You want quantum events to be random and uncaused but the brute facts of physics to be inevitable even though they also have no cause (according to you)
..…

How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact that the brute facts of physics could NOT have ever been anything other than what they are?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You are asking the “why” question again -by definition of brute fact, there cannot be any such “why”.

---------hammy-----------------------------

But that doesn't invalidate the question.
..…

Yes it does! How can a question of “why” be logically valid when the “why” you are referring to BY DEFINITION cannot logically exist?
...[text shortened]... ct that the brute facts of physics could NOT have ever been anything other than what they are?[/b]

How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact that the brute facts of physics could NOT have ever been anything other than what they are?
-----hammy----------------

But I explained before that all this does is dig one hole to fill another. Because you then have yet another brute fact C that determines that brute fact B is as it is (which by the way suggests a causal relationship) . Brute fact C cannot be said to be the way it is for any reason whatsoever ,so it logically follows that this is passed on by default to brute fact B as well.

If I say that the colour of my carpet was not arrived at by chance but that there was always a brute fact X that determined my carpet to inevitably be red , then this is fair enough. However , if brute fact X turns out to be arrived at by a throw of the dice all along then the implications of this are obvious for the redness of my carpet.

You are a clever fellow but every now and then you do drop some clangers.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know that it is NOT ALSO a brute fact that the brute facts of physics could NOT have ever been anything other than what they are?
-----hammy----------------

But I explained before that all this does is dig one hole to fill another. Because you then have yet another brute fact C that determines that brute fact B is as it is (which by the ...[text shortened]... ess of my carpet.

You are a clever fellow but every now and then you do drop some clangers.

….But I explained before that all this does is dig one hole to fill another. Because you then have yet another brute fact C that DETERMINES that brute fact B IS AS IT IS.
Brute fact C cannot be said to be the way it is for any REASON whatsoever ,so it logically follows that this is passed on by default to brute fact B as well
..… (my emphasis)

So I assume what you are trying to say by “Brute fact C cannot be said to be the way it is for any REASON whatsoever ,so it logically follows that this is passed on by default to brute fact B as well” is that

“Brute fact B cannot be said to be the way it is for any REASON whatsoever” ?

Which is a conclusion I agree with (even though I don’t understand your premise here) because BY DEFINITION of brute fact, there cannot ever be any REASON whatsoever for ANY brute fact.

But I propose that it is BOTH true that

(1) “brute fact C DETERMINES that brute fact B IS AS IT IS “

AND, by definition of “brute fact“,

(2) “Brute fact B cannot be said to be the way it is for any REASON whatsoever”

-BUT, and this is the critical point here; in THIS case, because of the nature of fact C, there is no logical contradiction between (1) and (2) (not that I am saying you suggested there was because I don’t understand your line of reasoning here but in case you think there is a contradiction here: ) the fact that “brute fact C DETERMINES that brute fact B IS AS IT IS” is NOT a “REASON” for the way brute fact B is the way it is because brute fact C doesn’t say “WHY” brute fact B is the way it is -all brute fact C is that couldn’t have been different from the way it is -that is all!