On 02.09.2011 22:39 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 12:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.09.2011 20:07 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2011 12:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In this series there is a clear statement that there are
questions that we cannot solve, for example if the Universe is
eternal or not. You rely on cause and at the same time on Big
Bang. But then Big Bang seems to have no cause. Or do you know
one in this case?
Cause is often ambiguous. In general events don't have a single
In the philosophy course Controversy in Philosophy, it was
mentioned that in the middle ages it was assumed that if a thing
has more than one cause, it leads to ambiguity. If I remember
correctly, then two angels could take the same place together.
Had they forgotten Aristotles four causes??
I believe that there were different terms, see for example
So a cause not always a cause.
If two particles collide then the event depended on both them having
the right trajectory to collide. As we trace the events back in time
the number of causes must either increase geometrically or there must
be uncaused events. The former is deterministic physics, the second
is quantum mechanics.
I would say that if we try to translate the world view of the middle
ages correctly, then that statement will be closer to that a phase
trajectory cannot cross itself. By the way, at that time the thought
that two angels could take the same place together by significance was
close to the modern statement that a collision of M-branes starts the
In some models of cosmogony the Big Bang is a random quantum
event meaning it has no immediate cause. In other models it is
generated by collision of M-branes, which might be deterministic.
But randomness does not imply the action of a conscious agent.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at