|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I certainly agree that it's helpful, and generally the way we do things pretty much all the time. But is it necessary? Well, it's what giving an explanation means. If we do something else, we're not doing that.
Can the answer be "there is something rather than nothing because this is the way things are." And then involve a description of how we know that things are "this way?" You mean something analogous to explaining why diamond is hard by describing its molecular structure? No, I don't think so. That's a different sort of "why" question. (Explaining why diamonds are hard doesn't explain why they exist in the first place.)
Maybe if there doesn't have to be something... then you are correct? But maybe if there does indeed have to be something... then you could be incorrect if we are able to figure it out? Well, proving that there has to be something is logically equivalent to proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-contradictory: there would have to be two statements which were necessarily true of such a state of affairs which contradicted one another. But what could those statements possibly be about? "There exists x such that P(x) and ~P(x) ..." --- but by hypothesis there does not exist x. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Well, it's what giving an explanation means. If we do something else, we're not doing that. I disagree. I think the OP's logic is faulty. There are descriptions of the origin of the universe that do not require a cause. For example if the origin of the universe were to be from a pre-existing, non-universe thingy that randomly produced the universe, then we might explain the creation of the universe from the thingy, without knowing how the thingy appeared. As a second example, if the creation of the universe involved the creation of time itself, there would again be no necessity for a cause, particularly if a cause is required to be prior in time to the effect. I think one huge hole in the OPs logic is that the statement that science is about cause and effect does not support the equivocation he follows in reaching his conclusion. Science is NOT necessarily about FIRST causes. The study of planetary orbits is scientific even without knowing the origins of gravity. We might talk about the origin of the sun without knowing how hydrogen became non-homogeneously distributed in the early universe. I could imagine another origin of this universe as one cycle of a big-bang, big crunch cycle. We could easily study the origin and development of this universe without having any clue as to how and why the cycle of bang-crunch ever started.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, it depends what you mean by "universe". I was taking it to mean "everything". If we take it to be some well-defined subset of everything, that would be different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Well, proving that there has to be something is logically equivalent to proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-contradictory: there would have to be two statements which were necessarily true of such a state of affairs which contradicted one another. But what could those statements possibly be about? "There exists x such that P(x) and ~P(x) ..." --- but by hypothesis there does not exist x.
This would be true in the sense that the existence of our particular universe is not logically necessary. There are mathematically and logically consistent universes which are not our own. Example: A world with a few fermions fields and force fields living in flat spacetime, such a world could even have complex chemistry. In fact why not a universe based on Conway's game of life or some generalisation. So you'll never be able to say "This is why it is this particular mathematical structure". In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, quantum gravity demands that eventually a universe will come into existence from absolutely nothing. So here you do have an origin of the universe, being produced from nothing. Although you could still ask why is "nothing" governed by quantum mechanical laws. So you can have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from nothing, it's the presence of the laws you can't explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Pressie writes:
No, the crux is that all the possibilties can't be reduced to just two things. You forget about other possibilties such as: and/or3.There were "first things". and/or 4. Some things have always been there. The possibilities are endless. Why restrict it to two? I believe my two conditions can be said to logically cover the entire set of possibilities for my purposes. Many "first things" and many "somethings that have always been here" are simply special cases of what I am talking about. In your suggestion, each "first thing" and each "Something that has always been here" is logically equal to the other for my purposes in that each has no cause. Given a scientific method based on cause and effect each would be equally unexplainable scientifically. While I admit your logic, I do not include these "multiples" for simplicity's sake and because each is logically equal to the other for my purposes. Logically, when populating a set (i.e. the beginning of the universe), one must start with a "first thing" or you must find your set already populated by "something that has always been there". I can't think of any other complementary, logical states to list. Therefore, I believe these two conditions can be said to logically cover all possibilities for my purposes. If I was trying to prove something scientifically then I would have to name all the possibilities. However, I am trying to prove something logically and when reducing an argument to its base, logical components it is necessary to group items into as simple a set as possible while maintaining its logical properties. Can you name other logical components that are complementary to the two found in my set?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This would be true in the sense that the existence of our particular universe is not logically necessary. There are mathematically and logically consistent universes which are not our own. My point is that it would also be consistent to have nothing at all.
In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, quantum gravity demands that eventually a universe will come into existence from absolutely nothing. So here you do have an origin of the universe, being produced from nothing. Although you could still ask why is "nothing" governed by quantum mechanical laws. So you can have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from nothing, it's the presence of the laws you can't explain. It depends what you mean by "nothing".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Logic fails at your 2nd point. According to several physicists - most notably Prof Hawking - the universe as we see it now, arose from nothing. That isn't a concept you can't just think your way out of - you need some mathematical ability to play with the madness of quantum theory. And yet I agrue that, logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that was always here". Both of which have no cause and therefore cannot be explained scientifically. Where is the hole in my logic? Edited by nano, : added quotation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Logically, when populating a set (i.e. the beginning of the universe), one must start with a "first thing" or you must find your set already populated by "something that has always been there". I can't think of any other complementary, logical states to list. Well, consider the set ( 0 , ∞ ). It has no first number in it, but it's different from ( -∞ , ∞ ). Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, quantum gravity demands that eventually a universe will come into existence from absolutely nothing. "Absolutely nothing" in this sense is simply the (or a) vacuum state of the theory. It's a position (or set of positions) in the moudli space of gravitational instantons. I've always been rather distressed at how easily various members of our community have claimed that it is the "nothing" of the "something from nothing" conundrum. It has simply developed as way of "shutting up" those who ask the naive question.
Although you could still ask why is "nothing" governed by quantum mechanical laws Exactly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Stile writes: Perhaps.But even if true, applying logic to the universe doesn't necessarily mean anything. The universe isn't constrained by your application of logic. Your point is hard to argue against. I would say that logic should count for something, but perhaps not everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
(Also a response to Dr. Adequate)
My problem is I don't know how to articulate that there is nothing but the laws, which allow a material "nothing" to develop into a material "something". It's hard to picture only "laws" existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3664 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
My point is that it would also be consistent to have nothing at all. And as with the last time this came up, I would suggest that "nothing" is ill-defined, and so it cannot be claimed that it is consistent in any way. Empty universes, zero sized universes, and other such "nothings" are easily entertained, and may be consistent under what ever theories they arise. But they're still not really the real "nothing".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, I have heard of this, but I would say "Go back farther with your mind. Go out farther into the multiverse." Logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".
Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe.Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes: Not only is "cause and effect" not mentioned in the scientific method, the scientific method was used to discover effects which have no apparent cause. Perhaps I should specify "scientific processes" instead of "scientific method"? It would not change my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
nano writes: And yet I agrue that, logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that was always here". Both of which have no cause and therefore cannot be explained scientifically. Where is the hole in my logic? No, you're asserting that there must be a first thing. The fact that you think it's a logical conclusion from what you know about the world (and what the rest of us know about the world) is irrelevant. Logic is useful to a point, but it fails when it meets a paradox. A paradox just marks a boundary to what we can work out using thought alone. It's a complete cliche, but simply saying that there must be a first cause that solves your logical paradox simply introduces another - what caused the 'first' cause?' Sorry, your own logic points to the flaw in your logic.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024