Athiests.... "Given infinite time, anything can happen"?

[root]

=lolwatever;619168]I'll look at the case of using the word 'abscence' and 'change' respectively:

How do you substantiate that? What makes you so sure that 'nothing will happen' is not a possibility?

Correct. Stale-mate, everything & nothing is possible. The fact the universe is here indicates that the probability is that something happend which follows nicely onto a multiverse concept of infinate time with variable laws of physics.

An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

^o) A change of teh law of physics means only events that are physically possible within those new set of laws could possibly occur.

Agreed within the boundaries of changing laws, so a parallel line will never cross inside of infinity but could should the laws grant it at another time or place. I don't see a problem here.

Therefore, For An event that violates those 'changed laws' to occur is impossible.

Within the laws that we are bound to only. So what is your point.

i.e. That statement is incorrect.

Not really, as I just demonstrated.

Since you made the above claim (which no one has yet made), trying to answer the question "Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen" is no different to answering "Given infinite time, anything can happen?".

It is different. One only requires infinate time (your thread against Pygo) and the other uses infinate time AND changes to the laws of physics (Pygo's point).

Your arguement is based on known laws against a statement where the laws are variable.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Since infinity goes on forever, I don't think you can say that it can give infinite consecutive 25s (if it is random and 25 isn't the only possible number), because the next number could always be not 25.

This is all quite a mind bender really.

Actually if it is truly random that means that "25" has to be a possible outcome for every single try. So if "25" is possible for every single try that means it is possible to get 25 with every single try and thus have infinite 25's. If that is not possible we are no longer talking about randomness.

 

[lolwatever]

Correct. Stale-mate, everything & nothing is possible.

You didn't say "everything and nothing" is possible did you? ^o)

Here's what you said:

"Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

meaning that jumbo jets could be created, as well as many other things. Which is something you can not substantiate.

You have moved away from discussing science and have entered into speculative metaphysics.

The fact the universe is here indicates that the probability is that something happend which follows nicely onto a multiverse concept of infinate time with variable laws of physics.

Multiverse theory is purely speculative metaphysics, nothing to do with science. Please read about quantum cosmology to get a more scientific understanding of how the universe most likely could have come about. Creation of this universe according to *science* (not metaphysics) has nothing to do with multiverses, and it (the instanton) was not the result of any prior physical event as you suggest.

An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

Where did you get that from :uuh: for all we know, the universe was not the result of any prior physical happening!

And what does that have to do with substantiating your premiss that ""Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen" " beating around the bush?

Agreed within the boundaries of changing laws, so a parallel line will never cross inside of infinity but could should the laws grant it at another time or place. I don't see a problem here.

Within the laws that we are bound to only. So what is your point.

Point is,

"Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

^ is wrong.

Anything means that even physically defiant occurrances can happen.

Not really, as I just demonstrated.

Read my poitn direclty above, perhaps you'll get it now.

Your arguement is based on known laws against a statement where the laws are variable.

When we discuss these things we discuss them using science, unless you have any scientific proof or derivation to substantiate both those claimes you made. You're no longer being scientific, you have entered into teh realms of metaphysics.

 

[root]

You didn't say "everything and nothing" is possible did you?

Correct I did not. I never said "something" either, it's pointless because nothing will undoubtly be part of everything! why do you need to attach a "nothing" as if it is not part of "everything"?

Everything and nothing and something mg:

meaning that jumbo jets could be created, as well as many other things. Which is something you can not substantiate.

Far for me to suggest anything, I am merely stating that with infinate time and variable physical laws anything is possible.

You have moved away from discussing science and have entered into speculative metaphysics.

Rubbish.

Multiverse theory is purely speculative metaphysics, nothing to do with science. Please read about quantum cosmology to get a more scientific understanding of how the universe most likely could have come about. Creation of this universe according to *science* (not metaphysics) has nothing to do with multiverses, and it (the instanton) was not the result of any prior physical event as you suggest.

Yes, you would think that way would you not. afterall, a single universe is what all the skygod believers use to debate how the universe seems so well fine tuned, that's probably why you try to imply multiverses are Speculative.

Multiverse (science), a consequence of some scientific theories which results in conclusions necessitating more than one universe. This is often a result of attempts to rationalize the underlying mathematics in quantum theory to cosmology.

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

The fact that the Earth is not the centre of the universe was once speculative, or that our local star (The Sun) was the only sun and so was our solar system being the only solar system. Then later on we realised we were part of a galaxy (oh yes, the only galaxy) only to discover that we can see millions of them too. Why is it, people always like to think single and unique when everytime we are proven wrong. Does logic not necessitate that we probably are not part of a "unique" single entity we dub the universe......

Or is it that skygod believers like to think uniqueness as a way of deluding themselves to the real truth...... afterall, probability can't play it's hand when you only have one shot at something happening which in turns increases the conclusion of design by designer.

What I find really insulting of you, is the way you are so quick to dismiss something as scientifically "speculative" as and when it suits you, yet more than happy to throw god in as unspeculative. This image here reminds me so much as to the way you think:

God of the gaps so to speak.

Root: An example would be that variable quantities of matter/dark matter would directly effect the laws of gravity (amongst other laws) within each universe, considering we understand the universe in the first place. For all we know, our universe could actually be the insides of a super massive dark star........

LOLwater: Where did you get that from for all we know, the universe was not the result of any prior physical happening!

Very true. for all we know the universe WAS the result of a prior physical happening, equally very true

Point is,

"Given infinate time, and the change of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

^ is wrong.

Anything means that even physically defiant occurrances can happen.

Yes, is that not what I was saying in the first place.

Read my poitn direclty above, perhaps you'll get it now.

I think it is you who gets it now, though I personally doubt that very much

When we discuss these things we discuss them using science, unless you have any scientific proof or derivation to substantiate both those claimes you made. You're no longer being scientific, you have entered into teh realms of metaphysics.

OMG, science can't even prove anything. It merely attaches a probability to something being true, and right now though you don't bet because you are Muslim you are doing the equivelent on backing a horse at 5000/1 with your life savings..... :hiding:

 

[lolwatever]

ok i'm going to reply to the offtopics in this post and the rest in the following one.

I don't know why you're bringing in this skygod idea and god of gaps. But here we go...

Multiverse (science), a consequence of some scientific theories which results in conclusions necessitating more than one universe. This is often a result of attempts to rationalize the underlying mathematics in quantum theory to cosmology.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse[/URL]

You forgot to realise it's a hypothesis, it's barely a theory. It's mentioned in the very top link you gave me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)

The fact that the Earth is not the centre of the universe was once speculative, or that our local star (The Sun) was the only sun and so was our solar system being the only solar system. Then later on we realised we were part of a galaxy (oh yes, the only galaxy) only to discover that we can see millions of them too. Why is it, people always like to think single and unique when everytime we are proven wrong. Does logic not necessitate that we probably are not part of a "unique" single entity we dub the universe......

Because those where not based on any form of analytical proof, where those conclusions arrived to by use of mathematical analysis or nething? no.

Quantum cosmology doesn't say 'there definately could not have been another universe', what it does say is "this universe was not the result of any prior physical event", meaning that this whole 'throwing of cosmic dice infinitely' argument is dead in the water.

Hence why i'm utterly confused why you try bringing it up.

Or is it that skygod believers like to think uniqueness as a way of deluding themselves to the real truth...... afterall, probability can't play it's hand when you only have one shot at something happening which in turns increases the conclusion of design by designer.

If science does prove that other universes exist, that just affirms Allah's existance even more, sicne this universe is within 7 others, where each universe compared to its parent is like a ring thrown in a desert. Straight from hadith.

The point is that you can't use multiverse hypothesis to go and try claim that this universe was boudn to exist or it came to existance due to some other universe. Quantum cosmology makes more than a claim based on mere observation, it's based on mathematical path integrals rather than thoughts and speculations (like the examples you mentioned in the quote above the current one).

What I find really insulting of you, is the way you are so quick to dismiss something as scientifically "speculative" as and when it suits you, yet more than happy to throw god in as unspeculative. This image here reminds me so much as to the way you think:

huh? I'm sorry but when you make rash claims like

"Given infinate time, and the absence of the laws of physics. Anything could happen"

no scientist can agree unless you provide some sort of analytical proof or justification.

And the point of labelling your multiverse argument as speculative is becasue there's absolutely no linkage between that and the creation of this universe. Who cares if there are other universes or not, the point is, according to analytical proof, our universe isn't the result of a physical priori.

Given the premise "Whatever begins has a cause", if it's not a physical cause, and we have a book whose author clearly tells us that he is the cause. which contains enough miracles for an open minded person to take seriously, then it's not as speculative as you may think to believe that it was Allah who created this universe.

So i hope this does away with the multiverse business as far as creation of universe is concerned. Nothing to do with whether its correct or not, it's simply irrelevent and speculative.