Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 220 (674176)
09-26-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nano
09-26-2012 5:33 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe.
Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes?
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".
Er, okay. Two half things combine to make one thing. Go back farther in your mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:33 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 220 (674184)
09-26-2012 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Son Goku
09-26-2012 5:31 PM


This proof has no answer..thus what does it prove?
Son Goku writes:
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.
This topic is oddly fascinating!
Does this mean that the laws have always existed, and, if so, are they themselves "something"?
Son Goku writes:
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.
Does this mean that the final answer is in fact a question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Son Goku, posted 09-26-2012 5:31 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 220 (674185)
09-26-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nano
09-26-2012 5:33 PM


How far can one really go when the destination is infinite?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:33 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:19 AM Phat has replied
 Message 64 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:54 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 220 (674224)
09-27-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
09-26-2012 11:55 PM


Re: How far can one really go when the destination is infinite?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 09-26-2012 11:55 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Phat, posted 02-27-2013 4:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 220 (674249)
09-27-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Always?
Dr Adequate writes:
It depends what you mean by "nothing".
Dr Adequate writes:
"For all x, there does not exist y such that y = x." That seems to meet the case.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 220 (674250)
09-27-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nano
09-26-2012 5:57 PM


No first cause or eternal objects.
nano writes:
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:57 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 7:11 AM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 220 (674251)
09-27-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by cavediver
09-26-2012 5:09 PM


Re: Always?
Apologies to others for the technical interlude, I will stop if it is annoying!
cavediver writes:
"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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 5:09 PM cavediver has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 53 of 220 (674262)
09-27-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
09-26-2012 7:17 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 09-26-2012 7:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 9:32 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 54 of 220 (674264)
09-27-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tangle
09-26-2012 5:44 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2012 5:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-27-2012 12:50 PM nano has not replied
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2012 3:11 PM nano has not replied
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 09-27-2012 5:34 PM nano has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 55 of 220 (674267)
09-27-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
09-27-2012 12:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:34 PM nano has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 220 (674283)
09-27-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
09-27-2012 12:34 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:34 PM nano has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 57 of 220 (674294)
09-27-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
09-27-2012 12:34 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:34 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:19 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 58 of 220 (674339)
09-27-2012 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nano
09-27-2012 12:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:16 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 10:07 PM Percy has replied
 Message 63 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:40 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 220 (674344)
09-27-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
09-27-2012 9:32 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 9:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 10:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 220 (674345)
09-27-2012 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
09-27-2012 10:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 10:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2012 12:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024