If the Big Bang were to be recreated, with the EXACT same fundamental laws and the EXACT same quantity of energy, that universe, throughout its complete evolution, would precisely match that of our current universe -- down to the exact location of literally any given particle at any given time. Agreed? All of the exactly identical particles would be formed under the same circumstances (laws) and would then interact with one another in the exact same ways (also because of identical set of laws).
Now, could this be taken a step further. Could we assume that this exact congruence would persist even when life on Earth (or anywhere else) inevitably forms (at the exact sime time and location as in ours). Meaning, would every living organism that has ever existed exactly mirror the actions it did and even thoughts that it had in our universe, no matter how miniscule or complex? A pair of immaculately identical cells would surely react in the exact same way under immaculately identical conditions. If one of those cells divides and replicates, surely the other will, too. Can this be assumed even when those organisms become self aware and evolve brains to make decisions with?
If your answer to both of these questions is yes, I have a final question for you. Wouldn't this then mean that everything that has ever happened and everything that YOU have ever experienced, or felt was literally destined to happen from the Big Bang?
no you're gay and probably get horny when you eat crab cakes
Oliver Edwards
I will beat your grandmother in front of you
Jose Gutierrez
Congratulations, you've entered the constant discussion of the existence of free will. Nothing special, what took you so long?
Charles Evans
Depends if you factor quantum mechanics into it. Particles are continually being created and destroyed entirely randomly will change the course of the universe.
That being said i've always wondered if consciousness is simply a highly evolved form of instinct and, although we think our thoughts and actions are free, we're simply thinking & acting in a predictable way according to stimuli and our brain is justifying it as being by our own free will.
Joshua Cook
Hadn't been doing the right drugs i guess heh
I'm only just starting to grasp the concepts within quantum mechanics. That is a great point though i hadnt taken into account
Bentley Bailey
You didn't mention time. I don't think the universe would look the same if we replicated it's creation with the exact same circumstances. I feel there are other laws at play in the universe that don't abide by our rules or "way of thinking." Sorry for being a little vague but I can just feel it, there's another force out there that will make our minds explode.
Kevin King
No, two different molecules of the same protein dont even take the same exact path to fold to their native and active form in vivo. Just cause you have the same energy and same molecules doesnt mean that all molecular interactions are uniform, consistent and evenly distributed.
Elijah Turner
I really enjoyed this reply! If that's the case, quantum mechanics namely superpositioned particles is proooobably the doorway to that mindfuck as suggested.
Gabriel Ortiz
Particles are different that macromolecules (proteins, neurons, any biological system). Things on the particle scale behave as quantum mechanics describes and anything larger than a bucket ball behaves as classical physics describes due to the mixing of molecular orbitals makes them continuous and no longer quantized
Austin Taylor
*bucky ball
Daniel Kelly
Noted. I don't know much about Proteomics so obviously didn't consider that.
Joshua Cooper
You also ignore that DNA replication is not even error proof. So variations or changes in sequence arise randomly
Jackson Moore
No.
Isaac Butler
>If the Big Bang were to be recreated, with the EXACT same fundamental laws and the EXACT same quantity of energy, that universe, throughout its complete evolution, would precisely match that of our current universe -- down to the exact location of literally any given particle at any given time. Agreed? no you'd have to deny that truly random events can occur. if truly random events can happen, then setting the same starting conditions have no bearing on the later state. or, on the contrary, it means that you could predict the exact future of our universe by recreating the exact beginning. as in you could say, run a simulation, and effectively time travel by pulling data from the "simulated future".
the moment you seperate the "copy universe" from the "model universe" they diverge in unique and random ways.
Jose Rogers
But errors have known causes, correct?
Jeremiah Smith
>Wouldn't this then mean that everything that has ever happened and everything that YOU have ever experienced, or felt was literally destined to happen from the Big Bang?
Deterministic emergence does not imply predetermination
Eli Martin
There could be a lot of randomness involved. We do not even know if the particles we observe and their interactions are the result of a random process called symmetry breaking. The separation into strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational force could be different after a big bang reset. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking_in_physics
Grayson Davis
define a "cause". errors the driving force for evolution outside of sexual reproduction. if a replicating "anything" is capable of imperfectly replicating itself, it will do so, because the imperfect copy is potentially more efficient than the parent copy, and necessarily selected for in those cases. (with diminishing returns. a totally broken copy won't work, and won't be able to spread any more)
Sebastian Thompson
>Particles are different that macromolecules (proteins, neurons, any biological system). Things on the particle scale behave as quantum mechanics describes and anything larger than a bucket ball behaves as classical physics describes due to the mixing of molecular orbitals makes them continuous and no longer quantized
No. Everything behaves as quantum mechanics describes. Classical physics is a convenient real-world abstraction.
Joseph Carter
wrong. Learn quantum mechanics.
Wyatt Edwards
>Deterministic emergence does not imply predetermination
>If the Big Bang were to be recreated, with the EXACT same fundamental laws no, a big bang used all matter just immagine mass of dozent suns. the father of thermodynamics calls you a fag
Blake Phillips
or quantum mechanics is an abstraction of some deeper reality. there are no definitive answers, just models which are the best ones so far.
Connor Walker
Translation for the alt-right: the outcome of a sports match is not determined in advance, even though the match proceeds according to rules that were agreed beforehand.
David Jackson
>I was destined to make shitty life choices woohoo
Jordan Perry
No, some errors have no effect (silent mutation) some errors prevent function, some errors lead to miss folding. By errors I mean a change in dna codon leads to a different amino acid being placed into the protein.
Liam Wilson
No the quantized nature of atoms refers to the quantized electron orbitals. As you add more atoms together to make larger molecules the orbitals begin to overlapped and fill in the gaps. Thus are not longer quantized and are continuous
Zachary Phillips
I have often thought about the same idea. But I can't get past the singularity. If there is an object which is the size of a marble but has infinite density, it is either a mistake in the math or it is still there. I am toying with the idea of instead of a big bang, that there is a grand fizzle. "Dark matter" is just hydrogen atoms spontaneously fizzling into existence, a by product of virtual particles and anti particles imperfectly separating, an error in the vast nothingness. When these errors accumulate, you eventually get stars, planets, galaxies, life. When anti matter meets matter, the whole error is cancelled out and you are back to nothing. 1 - 1 = 0 where we are the plus one (or the minus one), the fact of reality is there is nothing
Eli Smith
> it is either a mistake in the math or it is still there It's the consequence of einstein's special theory of relativity equation. You are pushing a denominator to zero in the equation
Oliver Davis
This is ignoring the fact that we simply don't understand the universe well enough to be certain that apparently random events are truly random. Outside of quantum physics, every event appears to have a non-random cause. But we don't know enough about events at the quantum scale to be certain whether what we see as apparently random events are truly random, or simply following fixed laws that we do not understand.
Joshua Jones
>every event appears to have a non-random cause Ignores errors DNA translation or transcription
Ethan Green
>Agreed?
No. The structure of the universe as it is today is a result of small scale, chaotic fluctuations in the density of the early universe, which you can see in the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
You can't just run the same experiment and get the same results when chaos theory is involved.
On a basic level consider radioactive decay, measured in terms of a half life, there is no regularity to the decay of an isotope so you literally can't run the same experiment twice with an isotope and get the *exact* same result.
Jonathan Ramirez
that's the core of the problem with OP's question. "we do not know". but as it stands, now, it appears that randomness is an actual thing.
>every event appears to have a non-random cause. i don't agree. even on the macro scale, things may be "probabilistic", in the sense of being predictable with stochastic models. is it a fault with measurements, or the nature of the test? is there some hidden knowledge that could reveal the outcome of an event with 100% certainty? maybe, but it doesn't seem that way with what we know now, and we can only make predictions based off the knowledge we have now.
Jose Thompson
Wrong. Determinism is dead. Godel killed it. Incompleteness is a proven theorem. The universe you describe wouldn't necessarily mirror our own or even be an exact copy of it.
Sorry if this ruins your ideas of the cosmos but math theorems do not lie.
Nathaniel Brown
First of all, it wasn't a big "bang", it was a big "stretch". A big expanding area full of "stuff" to be exact, originating at a single point. 75% Empty space (dark matter) - And something driving it too. Something forcing it to expand, for a very.... very long time. 25% Everything else (planets, you, me) The funniest part is, the 25% everything else eventually disappears. The universe will spend the majority of its life completely empty, once stars are gone.
I agree with OP. I don't believe in randomness. Things follow rules and those rules can be followed down to the smallest of details. Whatever or whoever created this entire reality, if they really are on a completely different level to humans, surely must be possible of creating an experiment as detailed as arranging matter in the right ways to provide sought after results. It's basically what scientists do already, just on a much smaller scale. We replicate things, prove things, get the results we want. How do we know this entire universe isn't the results something much smarter and bigger was after?
Christopher Gomez
Also maybe stop and think we're like, cells, living on cells, living on cells, inside of something much bigger. Like a way, way bigger animal. Maybe we're the cells living on protons/neutrons inside of that animal?
Or maybe we're in a multiverse?
Or maybe who the fuck knows and not even 1 trillion human years matters in the scale of things and we're just little bacteria things and we're never going to know shit like this until AI gets created
