>>13997038>Because there are only so many ways for a big-bang to begin in the same way there are only so many ways for lightning to strike or for a match to be lit. It may run near an infinite number, but it's still finite in the end.You know that even problems in classical mechanics and electromagnetism, not even jumping off into quantum or GR or anything, require infinitely many variables right? Only special cases and simple setups can actually be solved with finitely many parameters. Google Fourier Transform, Bezel Functions, Legendre Polynomials, anything like that. Even some relatively simple setups will require infinitely many parameters in order to describe their behavior
>If you could see into infinity and keep all of the variables the same on earth, you would see lightning strike the same place multiple times.What is a lightning rod
>quantum indeterminacy bitNo, hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics have been dead for half a century. Wave function collapse is observed to behave probabilistically and we can show that hidden variables explaining this are impossible (Bell's Theorem).
>Because there are only so many ways for a big-bang to begin No, see above
>and the Universe is so chaotic as to have a big-bang,Chaotic doesnt mean what you think it means
>it would happen under such a framework.Physics is fundamentally probabilistic. If you think it is deterministic, you are saying it is probabilistic where everything has a probability of 1. However, we know from quantum mechanics that there are <1 probabilities (almost always the case). It is an abuse of probability to say this MUST happen, rather than CAN happen.
>in the same way a ball will roll down a ramp is the same way that stars are born and planets are created.Sure, maybe the macroscale approximation of them appears to be simple and deterministic. But when things are very very tiny this is not the case, this is why a ball cant roll over a hill without a push, but a particle can.
