Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 12:15 PM
191 online now:
14174dm, Diomedes, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Taq, vimesey (8 members, 183 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,756 Year: 18,579/29,783 Month: 524/2,043 Week: 76/386 Day: 26/50 Hour: 5/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 61 of 331 (784370)
05-17-2016 4:23 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 where before there was nothing. Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?


No, because if Quantum Field Theory was the first thing in the universe you can't explain how it got there.

As a hypothetical example I offer the following: Suppose the laws of physics was the first thing in the universe. Their existence can't be explained, but QFT would be a second or greater thing able to be explained by the existence of the laws of physics.


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 69 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM nano has responded
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 5:51 PM nano has responded

    
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 62 of 331 (784372)
05-17-2016 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 2:47 PM


Cat Sci writes:

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


From the proof:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:42 PM nano has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 331 (784373)
05-17-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by nano
05-17-2016 2:58 PM


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.

Well, if the first thing didn't exist until the universe did,
and if the universe has a finite past
then the first thing has not always been there.

But this still doesn't leave room for an empty universe that just sits there without things in it.

Your proof fails to take this situation into account.

It is still possible that our universe can be explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:58 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 331 (784374)
05-17-2016 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nano
05-17-2016 4:36 PM


Cat Sci writes:

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


From the proof:

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.

So it's both the first thing and the universe that you're claiming cannot be explained, not just only the first thing, so this statement is false:

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:36 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3518
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 65 of 331 (784375)
05-17-2016 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
05-17-2016 2:01 PM


In this case don't your and kbertsche's positions differ only in semantics?

Of course. And that is the problem.

Reference Message 50

quote:
... 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".

This indicated to me that kbertsche was saying nano had some different definitions for these concepts that would negate QFT, specifically a quantum fluctuation, as a possible first cause that had nothing before it yet could explain the existence of this universe.

If this was his intent then I was hoping he or nano would show me what the differences are between the QFT and these "philosophical" definitions of "cause" and "nothing". That would require some definitions that would preclude QFT, what philosophy was used to arrive at these definitions as well as why that choice of philosophy among the various others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 05-18-2016 1:00 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 66 of 331 (784377)
05-17-2016 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by 1.61803
05-17-2016 3:26 PM


1.61803 writes:

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.


I believe the proof shows that no logical explanation can be found.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 3:26 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM nano has responded
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 5:31 PM nano has responded

    
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 67 of 331 (784381)
05-17-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 3:32 PM


bluegenes writes:

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.


I maintain the simple logic of my proof stands on its own.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 3:32 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 10:10 PM nano has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 68 of 331 (784382)
05-17-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nano
05-17-2016 4:57 PM


If the explanation is that the first cause had no prior cause is that not an explanation?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:57 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:42 AM jar has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3518
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 69 of 331 (784384)
05-17-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nano
05-17-2016 4:23 PM


Suppose the laws of physics was the first thing in the universe. Their existence can't be explained, but QFT would be a second or greater thing able to be explained by the existence of the laws of physics.

You're assuming the "laws of physics" are some set of physical-like things that need to come into existence before QFT can operate. But the laws of physics are our mathematical models of the way we see the universe operate. At present we have no evident explanations of what preceded the universe so it is impossible to tell what processes there were or were not. But to explain this universe, as per your syllogism, all it would take is the operations of QFT or some QFT-like process.

It may be that the "first thing" was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

3. This first thing was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

a. Therefore it can be explained.

4. Therefore the universe can be explained.

We just don't presently know for sure if the explanation is correct.

Edited by AZPaul3, : finish

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:23 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:51 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2016 1:44 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2804
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 70 of 331 (784385)
05-17-2016 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nano
05-17-2016 4:57 PM


No one has shown that a quantum fluctuation was not the origin of the universe.

HERE Stephan Hawking talks about the origin of the universe.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

quote:
....Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start.

Note that Dr. Hawking says "it may be possible." and "would start"
and this was back in 2005

Then in Sep 3 2010 in the following article he states this:
"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/...-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Then the predicted gravitational waves makes the news in 2014
http://www.pbs.org/...s/scientists-find-smoking-gun-big-bang

So there you have it. If you have the laws of physics you can get universes from nothing.
If you ask for a explanation on the origin of the laws of physics I will have to get back to you on that one.


"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 66 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:57 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 8:09 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 71 of 331 (784387)
05-17-2016 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nano
05-17-2016 4:23 PM


No, because if Quantum Field Theory was the first thing in the universe you can't explain how it got there.

There is no need if it didn't get there.

And its being can be explained if it could be no other way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:23 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 8:16 AM Modulous has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 452 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 331 (784392)
05-17-2016 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nano
05-17-2016 5:01 PM


nano writes:

bluegenes writes:

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.

I maintain the simple logic of my proof stands on its own.

Surely your proof relies on things not standing on their own. Is the existence of logic necessary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2016 11:40 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 92 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 8:46 AM bluegenes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 331 (784394)
05-17-2016 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
05-17-2016 2:30 PM


Duplicate

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 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM nano has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 74 of 331 (784395)
05-17-2016 10:23 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.

Well no. That is the thing you are trying to prove. You don't get to assert what is essentially your conclusion as part of your defense that your conclusion is right. The problem I am asking you to deal with is that your conclusion leads to absurdities.

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.

One of the things you might well conclude is that if the result is that nothing can be explained, then perhaps your idea is of no worth whatsoever. If you are perfectly satisfied with any explanation of anything, perhaps that is an indication that your current line of thinking is flawed.


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 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 5:46 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 331 (784397)
05-17-2016 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
05-17-2016 2:44 PM


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.

It is sufficient that empty space is not the universe, but can exist in the absence of the universe. Whether or not that was the actual state of affairs or not is irrelevant. If it is at least conceivable that a field fluctuation could occur in the absence of a universe, then it is conceivable that we can state exactly how the universe arose from that state. Whether or not QFT or string theory, or any other known science covers that possibility is also irrelevant.

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.

I find the reasoning in those posts similarly flawed. Let's consider instead the possibility that the universe was created by an infinitely powerful being that exists outside of our universe. A description of that being using extra dimensional energy to create our own universe would be a complete explanation. You might then want to ask where that being came from, but that question is separate from the question of where those other dimensions and that other being came from.


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 55 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 2:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 3:44 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018