|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? Er, okay. Two half things combine to make one thing. Go back farther in your mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Son Goku writes: This topic is oddly fascinating! 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. Does this mean that the laws have always existed, and, if so, are they themselves "something"?
Son Goku writes: Does this mean that the final answer is in fact a question?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
nano writes: 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". Is it not logical that if we must journey an infinite distance, we may never find the answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is it not logical that if we must journey an infinite distance, we may never find the answer? I think that that, again, would rather be his point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes:
It depends what you mean by "nothing".Dr Adequate writes:
Well this is actually the "nothing" used in the analysis of Hawking and Hartle. Under their model of quantum gravity there is a chance to quantum mechanically jump from the empty set (no matter, no spacetime) to a large universe filled with matter.
"For all x, there does not exist y such that y = x." That seems to meet the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
nano writes:
No there isn't. You can set up universes like this, which although fictional, they are mathematically consistent. There is no first object, nor does any object live forever. They're not the real world, but they there is nothing logically inconsistent about them.
I think you are ignoring how your proposed sets (universes) populate. Surely, logically, there must be a "first thing" or "something that has always been there" in your sets. Also, there may be quantum mechanical predications that make no use of cause and effect, but I'm sure they make use of quantum mechanical laws. It's really just semantics, isn't it?
No, the difference between something being acausal and causal is not just semantics, its completely different behaviour. An acausal object has no definite future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Apologies to others for the technical interlude, I will stop if it is annoying!
cavediver writes:
Is it a vacuum state? What I'm talking about is the fact that you can compute a non-zero amplitude to propagate from the null set to a three-manifold with a given metric. I wouldn't see that null set as the quantum mechanical ground state of such a theory, but perhaps I'm wrong.
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes: Yes, that's true, it would not change your argument and it would still be wrong, because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no apparent cause. You seem to be using semantics to point out that my argument is not perfectly formed. Agreed. Nevertheless, the logic of how a set is populated remains. You must have a first thing or you must find your set with something that is already there. When applied to the origin of the universe, both conditions have no cause and are therefore unexplainable. ( at Dr. A)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1320 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes: 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. Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition. It seems too simplistic to use words like "thing" or "something" when talking about the universe. With that being said, a universe from nothing would be a universe that has no first cause or comes from something that is already there. So there is your third condition... - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition. Half-things combining into being something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
nano writes: Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition. I'm saying that you can't use logic to solve this puzzle, because whichever way you go with it you hit a logical paradox. Logic is of absolutely no use to you because it fails at the infinite regress. If you believe that there must be a first cause and that is god. Then you MUST answer who caused god. By depending on the logic of the necessity for a first cause and then imagining a first cause without a first cause, you've rendered the logic null. The answer can't be found in logic. There's a chance it can be found in mathematics (that only a handful of people might think that they understand) but i think it more likely that we'll never know and can think of no good reason why we have the temerity to assume that we can.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
nano writes: You seem to be using semantics to point out that my argument is not perfectly formed. Agreed. No, of course it's not agreed. I was pointing out that your statement that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect is incorrect because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no cause. These effects are scientific processes that have no cause. Claiming that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect isn't a semantic problem, it's wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no cause. I think there are some semantic problems with your sentence. Isn't an effect, by definition, the result of a cause. Maybe some word like 'event' would be a better choice than 'effect'. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: I think there are some semantic problems with your sentence. Isn't an effect, by definition, the result of a cause. Maybe some word like 'event' would be a better choice than 'effect'. Mine is a common usage within physics. The Doppler effect has a cause, the Casimir effect does not (or ultimately, the virtual particles that are responsible for the effect have no cause). A non-physics definition where effects require causes would eliminate from consideration effects that do not have causes, such as occur in the quantum world. You propose the word "event" instead, and maybe that would help, but I don't like inventing fine distinctions that can only be remembered for a post or two. Effects and events are just things that happen, and some things that happen have causes and some don't. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024