Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:41 pm Can we agree that the stuff that existed at Big Bang had no structure?

That's fine, but it would have nothing to do with logical possibility. That would simply be what was contingently the case in our own particular universe.

I am talking about the observable universe which obviously is not a neutron soup.

Okay, but the Boltzmann brain argument is about probability in a Bayesian, not a frequentist, sense, where as I commented in an earlier discussion with you, is problematic.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:52 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:41 pm Can we agree that the stuff that existed at Big Bang had no structure?

That's fine, but it would have nothing to do with logical possibility. That would simply be what was contingently the case in our own particular universe.

Ok, could we agree on the expansion of space that leads to cooling of the stuff that existed at Big Bang?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:58 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:52 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:41 pm Can we agree that the stuff that existed at Big Bang had no structure?

That's fine, but it would have nothing to do with logical possibility. That would simply be what was contingently the case in our own particular universe.

Ok, could we agree on the expansion of space that leads to cooling of the stuff that existed at Big Bang?

Overall that seems to be the case, based on our current best knowledge, sure. (There are really a lot of unknowns there, but there's no problem agreeing on it as our current best knowledge.)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:58 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:52 pm
That's fine, but it would have nothing to do with logical possibility. That would simply be what was contingently the case in our own particular universe.

Ok, could we agree on the expansion of space that leads to cooling of the stuff that existed at Big Bang?

Overall that seems to be the case, based on our current best knowledge, sure. (There are really a lot of unknowns there, but there's no problem agreeing on it as our current best knowledge.)

Cooling then leads to the formation of matter, mostly quarks, and electrons. The point is that it is very unlikely that all quarks form only a soup of nitrogen when things cool down more considering the fact that proton is a possibility too.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:09 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:58 pm
Ok, could we agree on the expansion of space that leads to cooling of the stuff that existed at Big Bang?

Overall that seems to be the case, based on our current best knowledge, sure. (There are really a lot of unknowns there, but there's no problem agreeing on it as our current best knowledge.)

Cooling then leads to the formation of matter, mostly quarks, and electrons. The point is that it is very unlikely that all quarks form only a soup of nitrogen when things cool down more considering the fact that proton is a possibility too.

Talking about a "uniform soup of neutrons" was nothing about our particular, contingent universe. The idea is a clarification of concepts about infinity. You could have an infinity of "just one thing." The concept of "infinity" is still in play there--it's a never-ending uniform soup of neutrons, or a never-ending sequence of socks, or whatever we'd like to imagine. Those are examples of infinity. Under those examples, nothing else would obtain aside from the never-ending soup of neutrons or the never-ending sequence of socks. So "infinity" is a different idea than "eventually everything imaginable would obtain."

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:31 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:09 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:05 pm

Overall that seems to be the case, based on our current best knowledge, sure. (There are really a lot of unknowns there, but there's no problem agreeing on it as our current best knowledge.)

Cooling then leads to the formation of matter, mostly quarks, and electrons. The point is that it is very unlikely that all quarks form only a soup of nitrogen when things cool down more considering the fact that proton is a possibility too.

Talking about a "uniform soup of neutrons" was nothing about our particular, contingent universe. The idea is a clarification of concepts about infinity. You could have an infinity of "just one thing." The concept of "infinity" is still in play there--it's a never-ending uniform soup of neutrons, or a never-ending sequence of socks, or whatever we'd like to imagine. Those are examples of infinity. Under those examples, nothing else would obtain aside from the never-ending soup of neutrons or the never-ending sequence of socks. So "infinity" is a different idea than "eventually everything possible would obtain."

I am not talking about our universe but the whole. You could of course have a universe in which you can find a soup of neutron only. But the whole is bigger than that universe for sure and any other thing is possible, like as you said a universe which is a sequence of socks, etc.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:31 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:09 pm
Cooling then leads to the formation of matter, mostly quarks, and electrons. The point is that it is very unlikely that all quarks form only a soup of nitrogen when things cool down more considering the fact that proton is a possibility too.

Talking about a "uniform soup of neutrons" was nothing about our particular, contingent universe. The idea is a clarification of concepts about infinity. You could have an infinity of "just one thing." The concept of "infinity" is still in play there--it's a never-ending uniform soup of neutrons, or a never-ending sequence of socks, or whatever we'd like to imagine. Those are examples of infinity. Under those examples, nothing else would obtain aside from the never-ending soup of neutrons or the never-ending sequence of socks. So "infinity" is a different idea than "eventually everything possible would obtain."

I am not talking about our universe but the whole. You could of course have a universe in which you can find a soup of neutron only. But the whole is bigger than that universe for sure and any other thing is possible, like as you said a universe which is a sequence of socks, etc.

I use the word "universe" to refer to everything that exists; the whole of existence. So I wouldn't say there's a distinction there.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:42 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:31 pm

Talking about a "uniform soup of neutrons" was nothing about our particular, contingent universe. The idea is a clarification of concepts about infinity. You could have an infinity of "just one thing." The concept of "infinity" is still in play there--it's a never-ending uniform soup of neutrons, or a never-ending sequence of socks, or whatever we'd like to imagine. Those are examples of infinity. Under those examples, nothing else would obtain aside from the never-ending soup of neutrons or the never-ending sequence of socks. So "infinity" is a different idea than "eventually everything possible would obtain."

I am not talking about our universe but the whole. You could of course have a universe in which you can find a soup of neutron only. But the whole is bigger than that universe for sure and any other thing is possible, like as you said a universe which is a sequence of socks, etc.

I use the word "universe" to refer to everything that exists; the whole of existence. So I wouldn't say there's a distinction there.

Could we go back to Big Bang and when it cools down to a stage that we have quarks that move freely because of the high temperature?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:42 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:40 pm
I am not talking about our universe but the whole. You could of course have a universe in which you can find a soup of neutron only. But the whole is bigger than that universe for sure and any other thing is possible, like as you said a universe which is a sequence of socks, etc.

I use the word "universe" to refer to everything that exists; the whole of existence. So I wouldn't say there's a distinction there.

Could we go back to Big Bang and when it cools down to a stage that we have quarks that move freely because of the high temperature?

Sure . . . no idea what this is supposed to be leading to but okay.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:42 pm
I use the word "universe" to refer to everything that exists; the whole of existence. So I wouldn't say there's a distinction there.

Could we go back to Big Bang and when it cools down to a stage that we have quarks that move freely because of the high temperature?

Sure . . . no idea what this is supposed to be leading to but okay.

What is the chance to have a universe full of sucks? Or a soup of neutrons?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:55 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:51 pm
Could we go back to Big Bang and when it cools down to a stage that we have quarks that move freely because of the high temperature?

Sure . . . no idea what this is supposed to be leading to but okay.

What is the chance to have a universe full of sucks? Or a soup of neutrons?

The chance to have that at some point in the history of the universe?

We'd have no idea, because Bayesian probability is bogus. Only frequentist probability is valid, in my opinion, and even then there are problems with it as something predictive. There's no frequentist data for what occurs in the entire history of the universe, is there?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:55 pm

Sure . . . no idea what this is supposed to be leading to but okay.

What is the chance to have a universe full of sucks? Or a soup of neutrons?

The chance to have that at some point in the history of the universe?

Yes.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:01 pm We'd have no idea, because Bayesian probability is bogus.

Why you think so.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:01 pm Only frequentist probability is valid, in my opinion, and even then there are problems with it as something predictive. There's no frequentist data for what occurs in the entire history of the universe, is there?

Yes, there is. The most probable scenario is what you observe.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:11 pm Why you think so.

It's not based on any empirical data. (That is, the probability claims qua probability claims.)

Yes, there is.

???

Frequentist data. We'd need at least one iteration. We've not had an iteration of the entire history of the universe.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:11 pm Why you think so.

It's not based on any empirical data. (That is, the probability claims qua probability claims.)

Yes, there is.

???

Frequentist data. We'd need at least one iteration. We've not had an iteration of the entire history of the universe.

Are you talking about two iterations?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:23 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:11 pm Why you think so.

It's not based on any empirical data. (That is, the probability claims qua probability claims.)

Yes, there is.

???

Frequentist data. We'd need at least one iteration. We've not had an iteration of the entire history of the universe.

Are you talking about two iterations?

No, one. we've not had one iteration of the entire history of the universe. It's an ongoing project. We won't have the entire history until it's over.