|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All great questions but irrelevant to the topic of the OP. No, that's very much his point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
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.
Except Quantum Field Theory can explain how something can come into existence without a cause AZPaul3 writes:
But again, you are using the quantum mechanics concept of "nothing" which is very different from the philosophical concept of "nothing".
where before there was nothing. AZPaul3 writes:
No, because of the above.
Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1321 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
As the proof shows only the first thing in the universe cannot be explained.
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. NoNukes writes:
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.
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. NoNukes writes:
No conundrum exists. As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1321 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1321 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
But the lack of a cause doesn't imply a lack of an explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024