Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 1:21 AM
216 online now:
Dr Adequate, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 213 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,525 Year: 15,348/29,783 Month: 1,292/1,502 Week: 49/241 Day: 2/47 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 46 of 330 (784330)
05-16-2016 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

Except Quantum Field Theory can explain how something can come into existence without a cause where before there was nothing. Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2016 11:36 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 61 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:23 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 47 of 330 (784331)
05-16-2016 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 9:25 PM


All great questions but irrelevant to the topic of the OP.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 9:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 10:14 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16041
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 48 of 330 (784332)
05-16-2016 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
05-16-2016 10:11 PM


All great questions but irrelevant to the topic of the OP.

No, that's very much his point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 10:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 11:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 49 of 330 (784334)
05-16-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 10:14 PM


How so? Is the topic not " A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained"? If the universe is explained then would those not be other questions?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 10:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2016 11:39 PM jar has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 57 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 50 of 330 (784336)
05-16-2016 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
05-16-2016 10:06 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


Except Quantum Field Theory can explain how something can come into existence without a cause


When you say this, you are using a quantum-mechanics concept of "cause". This is very different than the philosophical concept of "cause", which I believe is what nano is using.

AZPaul3 writes:


where before there was nothing.


But again, you are using the quantum mechanics concept of "nothing" which is very different from the philosophical concept of "nothing".

AZPaul3 writes:


Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?


No, because of the above.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2016 10:06 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 9:04 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 330 (784344)
05-17-2016 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 4:17 PM


Adequate writes:

Can the non-existence of unicorns exist

It's oxymoronic at best, as when we use the phrase "unicorns exist nowhere". The concept exists, but then unicorns exist as a concept, and so does the idea of a reality of pure nothingness.

Absence of an entity depends on the existence of existence and the reality of reality, as does presence. There's always something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(2)
Message 52 of 330 (784348)
05-17-2016 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by kbertsche
05-16-2016 11:36 PM


... you are using a quantum-mechanics concept of "cause". This is very different than the philosophical concept of "cause" ...

... you are using the quantum mechanics concept of "nothing" which is very different from the philosophical concept of "nothing".

I see nowhere in nano's syllogism where he/she chooses to define these terms as anything other than the concrete basic terms as science would use them rather than some wishy-washy philosophical treatment where the terms differ in meaning depending on the particular philosophy of the philosopher attempting the definition.

If we are attempting to "explain the universe", as per the OP, then we must use the definitions for "cause" and "nothing" in the way QFT defines them since QFT is one of our present best theories for explaining the operations of this universe; unless you're alluding to some other philosophically twisted definitions of the words "explain" and "universe".

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2016 11:36 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 2:44 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 330 (784357)
05-17-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 9:04 AM


rather than some wishy-washy philosophical treatment where the terms differ in meaning depending on the particular philosophy of the philosopher attempting the definition.

In this case don't your and kbertsche's positions differ only in semantics? You are willing to accept explanations that are not cause/effect descriptions (a position I personally agree with), while kbertsche elects to redefine cause in some way to cover events that you would consider uncaused. In either case, I believe you and kbertsche would agree on what constitutes an explanation for the universe.

It appears to me that the OP is inherently defining explanation to mean 'describe how something results from its ultimate cause.' I submit that his definition is non-conventional and that if we decide that we cannot explain the universe in the way described in the OP, that such a question in nothing more than a statement that uncaused things have no causes; an obvious tautology.

Generally I would reject the OP's definition of explanation. I can explain how to calculate the value of pi of a blackboard without explaining how your synapses must fire when moving the chalk or even how the blackboard and chalk came into existence. I can explain how the earth orbits the sun without explaining how the hydrogen in the sun came to be.

If, for example, I explained how the universe came to exist from a collision of parallel branes, I submit that such a description is an explanation of the origin of the universe in a meaningful sense even if I cannot then tell you how those branes came to exist.

philosophically twisted definitions of the words "explain" and "universe"

Isn't this thread about a fairly twisted definition of the term explain?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 9:04 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 4:45 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 89 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 8:26 AM NoNukes has responded

  
nano
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 54 of 330 (784360)
05-17-2016 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
05-15-2016 11:56 PM


NoNukes writes:

If in fact, a second and third thing can be explained, then it is possible that the universe is a third, or even a 100th thing following a first unexplained cause. By your current admission, we would have to regard a tracing of the universe to at least one (or possibly more) describable precursor(s) as an explanation.


As the proof shows only the first thing in the universe cannot be explained.

NoNukes writes:

If such explanations are instead disallowed, then we can extend your original argument to say that nothing we observe can be explained, because all things we know rely on the universe first to have existed.


Your stement suggests an interesting second corollary to my proof. Namely, that ultimately nothing can be explained because at the root of it the universe cannot be explained. I will have to think about this.

NoNukes writes:

I believe that the only way to escape the conundrum expressed above is that the original concept, namely that we can only have an explanation if that explanation is ultimate must be rejected because that is not the sense in which we use the term explanation.


No conundrum exists. As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2016 11:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 2:47 PM nano has responded
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 3:32 PM nano has responded
 Message 73 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:20 PM nano has not yet responded
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:23 PM nano has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 330 (784362)
05-17-2016 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 9:04 AM


I see nowhere in nano's syllogism where he/she chooses to define these terms as anything other than the concrete basic terms as science would use them rather than some wishy-washy philosophical treatment where the terms differ in meaning depending on the particular philosophy of the philosopher attempting the definition.

Science is a particular philosophy. A philosophy that seeks to understand the ontology and epistemology of a certain metaphysical set. That is, it seeks to understand the entities that exist, the relationships between those entities, how we can have confidence in our beliefs/knowledge about those entities, within the 'natural world'.

If we are attempting to "explain the universe", as per the OP, then we must use the definitions for "cause" and "nothing" in the way QFT defines them since QFT is one of our present best theories for explaining the operations of this universe;

It struggles, however, in a situation which lacks a quantum field. It is true that in QFT there is no such thing as 'empty space', but that does not comment on 'emptiness' The state of their not being any space. Not-space is not covered in QFT.

If you want to say this is nonsense, that the minimal state of being involves a quantum field, then what you are specifically saying can be said without specificity as 'there is at least one entity that is necessary' and it turns out you were doing that 'wishy-washy' philosophy all along.

Go back to the argument between Dr Adequate and mentally replace 'necessary entities' with 'the quantum field' and 'nothing' as 'no quantum field', if you want to translate from specific claims, to more general ones.

Because once we thought atoms were necessary and eternal. The more we looked the more our minds changed. Since 'The quantum field is necessary' can only be phrased with tentativity, maybe the quantum field evolves from some other, necessary state, we can dispense with worrying about arguing over empirical details so that people with different opinions about the natural world can discuss the topic in a slightly less hostile environment complicated by side issues.

So that's why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 9:04 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 330 (784363)
05-17-2016 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
05-17-2016 2:30 PM


As the proof shows only the first thing in the universe cannot be explained.

As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

Is it only the first thing or also the universe itself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
nano
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 57 of 330 (784364)
05-17-2016 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
05-16-2016 10:33 AM


Cat Sci writes:

Well, I suppose that universe could not be explained. Where were you planning on going from there?

But I don't see that having anything to do with our universe, where it did not exist in an empty state before there were things in it.

The universe is the things, so without them we don't have our universe.

As the corollary to my proof shows, a universe where the first thing always existed cannot be explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2016 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:39 PM nano has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2784
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 58 of 330 (784367)
05-17-2016 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


Are you suggesting it will never be explained because there is no explanation?

Or that there may be a explanation but science will never find it.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:57 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 59 of 330 (784368)
05-17-2016 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
05-17-2016 2:30 PM


A simplified proof made even simpler.
nano writes:

No conundrum exists. As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

If the logic used in your proof is necessarily correct, and doesn't require a causal explanation, then that would leave you without a proof. If it isn't necessarily correct, then that leaves you without a proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM bluegenes has responded

  
nano
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 60 of 330 (784369)
05-17-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
05-16-2016 5:17 PM


Percy writes:

But the lack of a cause doesn't imply a lack of an explanation.


As the proof shows, when you consider the first thing in the universe being without cause then the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 8:44 AM nano has responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018