Sentences with phrase «state of the universe»

Because the universe has many possible histories and just as many possible beginnings, the present state of the universe selects the past.

The early states of the universe are to be explained by the fact that they made subsequent states possible.

An observer standing outside, however, has what is seemingly the opposite problem: What happens along such a curve can not be uniquely predicted from the prior state of the universe.

Even more it tends to support a deterministic universe because every quantum change since the big bang is time invariant and so you can theoretically calculate every moment in the future and every moment in the past from a perfect snapshot of the quantum state of the universe at any point in time.

Furthermore, Maudlin suggests that «the initial state of the universe (if there is one) could just as well be the uncaused cause.

Pushing Newtonian determinism to the extreme, the former wrote, «We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future.»

This hinted that the final state of the universe predicted by general relativity was related to growing entropy.

Even if we believe that the laws of physics in principle determine the evolution of some particular state of the universe with perfect fidelity, we don't know what that state is, and in the real world the increase of entropy is consistent with any number of possible futures.

One of the difficulties in answering such questions is that God is timeless and unchangeable, whereas we are immersed in time and so picture His actions as a temporal sequence: «His creation is not one timeless act or one act at the beginning of time; it is a series of acts which continually bring into being new states of the universe by His positive or permissive willing».

One might object that prior to the physicist's first Planck time, there was an initial absolutely stationary state of the universe or (inclusive disjunction) of God, and that since time can only exist where there is change, time does not exist always, i.e., in case of a stationary state of affairs descriptive of the universe class.

yes Could God have ordered the extraordinatry initial low entropy state of the universe such that these events would occur?

But it also indicates that Hartshorne does not (at least here) want to recognize that p can stand for the universe as a whole, not just some particular concrete state of the universe.

Furthermore, each of these happenings seems to reflect the whole state of the universe as it impinges upon that happening and then to become a part of the universe impinging upon subsequent happenings.

Atheism is the natural state of the universe.

Unlike Mill, for whom this is an empirical claim about human nature, however, Hartshorne views it as an implication of a Whiteheadian metaphysical system which is held to be valid for all possible states of the universe.5 In this system, experiences (or «feelings») are the primitive constituents of all reality.

The only way we can maintain that the predicted happenings are «contained in» the present state of the universe described in the premises is to read back into the premises the dubious thesis at issue, that all events that are definite now are also actual now.

Many fundamental traits, forces, and physical constants — like the charge of the electron or the strength of gravity — make it appear as if everything about the physical state of the universe were tailor - made for life.

Metaphysics would help us to see that the initial state of the universe could not be the uncaused cause of the universe, as Maudlin suggests would be possible.

He and Botero are also searching for signatures that the final state of the universe could retroactively leave on the relic radiation of the Big Bang, which could be picked up by the Planck satellite launched last year.

We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow.

The simpler types of existent do not cease to exist, of course, but once higher material synthesis has occurred, there is no going back to an earlier state of the universe.

Cosmological reflections about the age of the universe or the transition from one state of the universe to another state, or questions about what happened before the Big Bang do not contribute to an affirmation or a denial of the universe's being created.

Without a model of quantum gravity, it is IMPOSSIBLE to describe the initial state of the universe, or even be sure if it really was a singularity, let alone «coming into existence from nothingness» (not that we even have an example of «nothingness» to compare to.

It makes no claim about the state of the universe before the expansion.

However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws.

There's no real understanding the state of the universe, it's purpose, or what the «work» is.

If my interpretation of Peirce's discussion of the initial state of the universe is correct, then dynamism is given; and the issue before us is to account for the direction the given dynamism takes.

@CHAD: if energy CAN NOT be created nor destroyed then it was ALWAYS here; meaning the universe has always had the same constant amount of energy regardless of the state of the universe.

And, as we shall see later in greater detail, the Bergsonian argument proves too much, for it entails that we should never be able to speak truly now of a future event that is incompatible with the present state of the universe.

This roughly corresponds to the current state of our universe.

There would be no way to predict the existence of such a stranger from the state of the universe at an earlier time.

We would therefore have to abandon the concept of determinism, the idea that the state of the universe at any one time determines the state at all other times.

But that requirement is not enough to make the events predictable, with the future determined by the laws of physics and the state of the universe at one moment in time.

The theorem's proof, similar to the results of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's halting problem, relies on a variant of the liar's paradox — ask Laplace's demon to predict the following yes / no fact about the future state of the universe: «Will the universe not be one in which your answer to this question is yes?»

But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life's emergence.

«It's believed to correspond to the state of the universe shortly after the Big Bang,» Wang said.