Thread: If we had all the information of the current universe, can reverse-causality (back-tracking casuality) be used to calculate the past events?

and will back-tracking to infinity show us the origin of time?

(i know we cant get those information. if you mind, dont remind me im saying it here xD)

Not in detail because of chaos theory (makes prediction of deterministic systems impossible) and quantum uncertainty (menas the universe is not deterministic).

But in general terms, yes. See also: big bang theory.

Yes, the universe is not deterministic, but by back-tracking, we will know the origin of acasual events, e.g.(backtracking viewing all the energy regions... etc. till the point where the energy released by the muons come back to form a muon)

and i need to take some time soon to read up on Chaos theory.
someone gave me a link on a website on chaos theory and i dont understand that website, could you/someone kindly help me find one?

i dont know where to start finding, and im afraid i would spend hours reading crackpot ones..

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Strange

Not in detail because of chaos theory (makes prediction of deterministic systems impossible)

i've read about chaos theory. i understand most parts, but some details are too complex for me.
now, i still dont get why chaos theory makes the prediction of deterministic systems impossible.
it will get more and more harder to predict as time passes. but when will it get to: impossible to predict?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

it will get more and more harder to predict as time passes. but when will it get to: impossible to predict?

From the very beginning.
You seem to be confusing short-term predictability with overall predictability.

I thought chaos theory only applies to purely deterministic conditions?
and since our universe isn't purely deterministic, chaos theory shouldn't be brought up here?

correct me. i may be wrong.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

I thought chaos theory only applies to purely deterministic conditions?
and since our universe isn't purely deterministic, chaos theory shouldn't be brought up here?

The universe is a chaotic system.
The deterministic part applies to the basic "information".
Why do you say that the universe isn't purely deterministic?
deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.

The initial conditions of the universe were "fixed" (i.e. they were what they were) - any behaviour AFTER the start arises FROM those conditions - ergo the universe is, in the strict meaning of the word, deterministic.

quantum fluctuations are deterministic?
radioactive decay is deterministic?

things that do not happen with a cause is: deterministic?


Things that dont happen with a cause is determined by initial conditions <===not a contradiction?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

quantum fluctuations are deterministic?
radioactive decay is deterministic?

Ho hum, which part of "The initial conditions of the universe were "fixed"" did you miss?
The UNIVERSE, as a whole is deterministic BECAUSE the initial conditions were set.
Anything AFTER the start is chaotic - cannot be predicted ¹.

1 Although this applies to different things with different degrees of un/ certainty.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

it will get more and more harder to predict as time passes. but when will it get to: impossible to predict?

From the very beginning.
You seem to be confusing short-term predictability with overall predictability.

Are you kidding.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

quantum fluctuations are deterministic?
radioactive decay is deterministic?

Ho hum, which part of "The initial conditions of the universe were "fixed"" did you miss?
The UNIVERSE, as a whole is deterministic BECAUSE the initial conditions were set.
Anything AFTER the start is chaotic - cannot be predicted ¹.

1 Although this applies to different things with different degrees of un/ certainty.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

I thought chaos theory only applies to purely deterministic conditions?
and since our universe isn't purely deterministic, chaos theory shouldn't be brought up here?

The universe is a chaotic system.
The deterministic part applies to the basic "information".
Why do you say that the universe isn't purely deterministic?
deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.

The initial conditions of the universe were "fixed" (i.e. they were what they were) - any behaviour AFTER the start arises FROM those conditions - ergo the universe is, in the strict meaning of the word, deterministic.

The universe is a chaotic system.

Where did you get that, prove it. If it was so chaotic how do you function in it. Please substantiate your statement.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Ho hum, which part of "The initial conditions of the universe were "fixed"" did you miss?
The UNIVERSE, as a whole is deterministic BECAUSE the initial conditions were set.
Anything AFTER the start is chaotic - cannot be predicted ¹.

1 Although this applies to different things with different degrees of un/ certainty.

do you mean the exact timing of quantum fluctuations and radioactive decay are determined on the set initial conditions of the universe?

Originally Posted by Therapy

Are you kidding.

No.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Prove it.

You're so funny.

Originally Posted by Therapy

Where did you get that, prove it.

I suggest you go find out what the word "proof" means and how it's used in science.

If it was so chaotic how do you function in it. Please substantiate your statement.

You appear to be assuming that the presence of chaos somehow precludes, or at least severly militates against, life.
Don't make facile assumptions.

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

do you mean the exact timing of quantum fluctuations and radioactive decay are determined on the set initial conditions of the universe?

Indirectly: the initial conditions of the universe dictated what came after.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Indirectly: the initial conditions of the universe dictated what came after.

so you say there is an initial condition of the universe?
and the exact details of the big bang(a quan flux) is determined by the initial conditions?

since there is no 'start of time', when is the initial conditions set?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

since there is no 'start of time', when is the initial conditions set?

At the moment of creation ¹.
Not "before" because there was no before.
Everything that has happened since the BB is a "consequence" of those initial conditions - yes, I know that's verging on tautological.


1 Admittedly a rather spread out "moment", since, as I understand it, things could have gone in one of a number of different ways. I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly why it turned out the way it did.

So, space-time does not exist before the big bang?

I thought our universe was a space-time only, void from matter and energy from start of infinity-eternity, (refer. milne model), and at one point of time, big bang appeared (refer. quantum fluctuations).

and you say that space-time don't exist before the big bang?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Not "before" because there was no before.

which part did i understand wrongly?

Since the milne model shows that the universe can exist without energy/matter, and the material universe is made of matter/energy, and this material universe is created by the big bang, which is a quantum fluctuation, why do we say that time cannot exist before this quantum fluctuation appeared?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

So, space-time does not exist before the big bang?

No.

I thought our universe was a space-time only, void from matter and energy from start of infinity-eternity, (refer. milne model), and at one point of time, big bang appeared (refer. quantum fluctuations).

I'm completely at a loss to understand what you mean by the first part, the Milne Model isn't valid, and how can there be quantum fluctuations ¹ when there's no space time, no matter, no energy? In order for there to be quantum fluctuations there has to be a universe...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Not "before" because there was no before.

which part did i understand wrongly?

Since time didn't start until the BB itself, then any use of the word "before" is meaningless.


1 You do seem to have latched on to this term, and you also appear to post it as if it's an "explanation" for any number of things.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

the Milne Model isn't valid

if it isn't valid, why do other forumers use in as support for explainations?
Thread here, post #29

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

how can there be quantum fluctuations ¹ when there's no space time, no matter, no energy?

So matter and energy exists before the big bang occured?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Saying this is what the universe was like before the big bang is meaningless as has been mentioned there is no before.

if the big bang is a quantum fluctuation, and no time(nothing) exists before it,

why are minute amounts of quantum fluctuations detected from time to time?

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

if the big bang is a quantum fluctuation, and no time(nothing) exists before it,
why are minute amounts of quantum fluctuations detected from time to time?

Even IF the BB were a quantum fluctuation (or "caused" by one), that does not mean that each and every QF is a BB.
If that's what you're getting at - I can't quite see what else your meaning could be here.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Is the BB a quantum fluctauation? See the answer the duck gave in the other thread.

which post?

In essence you'd need a perfectly duplicate universe to the subatomic level of detail to do as you suggest.

Lots of things are not predictable by looking back even if you have good current information. Say for example you know with absolute precision how a goose feather landed on your head--it's velocity, it's position etc. How high was the goose that lost the feather? How fast was it going? In what direction? It's age? See the problem?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ryanawe123

So, space-time does not exist before the big bang?

No.

I thought our universe was a space-time only, void from matter and energy from start of infinity-eternity, (refer. milne model), and at one point of time, big bang appeared (refer. quantum fluctuations).

I'm completely at a loss to understand what you mean by the first part, the Milne Model isn't valid, and how can there be quantum fluctuations ¹ when there's no space time, no matter, no energy? In order for there to be quantum fluctuations there has to be a universe...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Not "before" because there was no before.

which part did i understand wrongly?

Since time didn't start until the BB itself, then any use of the word "before" is meaningless.


1 You do seem to have latched on to this term, and you also appear to post it as if it's an "explanation" for any number of things.

You ask for proof and you want everything to be substantiated, but you make these wild assumptions and inaccuracies. You make the people who know what they are talking about look stupid.

What are you talking about? Before the big bang there were preconditions, from what? What do you mean by no time and space, what is space?

Originally Posted by Therapy

You ask for proof and you want everything to be substantiated, but you make these wild assumptions

Show one, please.

and inaccuracies.

Show one, please.

You make the people who know what they are talking about look stupid.

Really?
If they actually knew what they were talking about couldn't they simply, er, SHOW that they know, and thereby make me look stupid?

Before the big bang there were preconditions

Um, again:

Since time didn't start until the BB itself, then any use of the word "before" is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Therapy

You ask for proof and you want everything to be substantiated, but you make these wild assumptions

Show one, please.

and inaccuracies.

Show one, please.

Really?
If they actually knew what they were talking about couldn't they simply, er, SHOW that they know, and thereby make me look stupid?

You make the people who know what they are talking about look stupid.

Really?
If they actually knew what they were talking about couldn't they simply, er, SHOW that they know, and thereby make me look stupid?

Before the big bang there were preconditions

Um, again:

Since time didn't start until the BB itself, then any use of the word "before" is meaningless.

You said it, you do look stupid. I really am not looking for empty conversation, and I really do not think we can conduct one so please lets move on.
Thanks a lot for the not so good connection. Sometimes some people just cannot make conversation, especially when one think they know it all such as you. Take care.

Originally Posted by Therapy

You said it, you do look stupid.

Really?
Have you shown my "wild assumptions" or "inaccuracies" yet?
Or was that false accusation sparked by pique?

I really am not looking for empty conversation, and I really do not think we can conduct one so please lets move on.

I agree. False accusations don't contribute to the conversation at all.

Sometimes some people just cannot make conversation, especially when one think they know it all such as you.

You misunderstand. It's the refusal to reason that's stopping the progress of this thread. Please try.

people skills baby
people skills

Originally Posted by sculptor

people skills baby
people skills

Pfft, what's the point of "people skills" when "conversing" with a liar?