Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 10:06 PM
275 online now:
JonF, ramoss, Tanypteryx (3 members, 272 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 76 of 330 (784400)
05-17-2016 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
05-16-2016 11:05 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?

As I understand nano, by "the universe" he means absolutely everything, including Brahma, turtles, and so forth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 11:05 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 77 of 330 (784401)
05-17-2016 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 10:10 PM


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

I think talking of logic as "existing" is extremely tendentious; unless one means as a concept or a subject of study, in which case its existence is not at all necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 10:10 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 4:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 78 of 330 (784409)
05-18-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 4:45 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


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.

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?

His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"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 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:29 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 79 of 330 (784413)
05-18-2016 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
05-17-2016 11:40 PM


Logic ruled out logically
Dr Adequate writes:

I think talking of logic as "existing" is extremely tendentious; unless one means as a concept or a subject of study, in which case its existence is not at all necessary.

I was asking the O.P. if he thought it necessary. I personally think it requires a somethingness reality, and therefore doesn't qualify as an uncaused first cause. Statements and their makers are things, which is why the one you used further up the thread is inherently false because it can only exist in a world where it's false. A bit like "Statements are never made".

In using logic in discussing the O.P., we may all be unwittingly treating the existence of some things as necessary.

BTW, we can't strictly prove a claim like "unicorns exist nowhere", but "nothingness exists nowhere" is necessarily true, assuming that our type of reality is a necessary thing, and therefore a place is necessarily something.

Edited by bluegenes, : tpyo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2016 11:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2016 7:14 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14408
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 80 of 330 (784415)
05-18-2016 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by bluegenes
05-18-2016 4:34 AM


Re: Logic ruled out logically
Logic applies to the statements we make. Whether it "exists" in any particular situation seems a pointless and trivial question. The question is whether it applies to the statements we make about that situation - and I do not see a good reason why it would not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 4:34 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

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


Message 81 of 330 (784416)
05-18-2016 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by kbertsche
05-18-2016 1:00 AM


kbertsche writes:

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?

His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Yes, you read me correctly. I was trying to keep the proof simple. I like to think of it as the null set.

Edited by nano, : added comment about the null set


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 05-18-2016 1:00 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

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


Message 82 of 330 (784417)
05-18-2016 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 4:39 PM


It can't be explained because the first thing cannot be explained. Being the first thing it has no cause and therefore no explanation. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

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


Message 83 of 330 (784418)
05-18-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 4:42 PM


A=B
The first thing is the universe at that point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:00 AM nano has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 84 of 330 (784419)
05-18-2016 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
05-17-2016 5:01 PM


No, it is not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:26 AM nano has responded

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


Message 85 of 330 (784420)
05-18-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 5:17 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

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.


More accurately I assume the laws are hard-codes into the underlying fabric of the universe.

AZPaul3 writes:

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.


Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? Perhaps it was the first thing in the universe. As such, it has no cause and cannot be explained. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 8:53 AM nano has responded

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


Message 86 of 330 (784422)
05-18-2016 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 1.61803
05-17-2016 5:31 PM


1.61803 writes:

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.


Yes, exactly my point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 5:31 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by 1.61803, posted 05-19-2016 12:24 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 87 of 330 (784423)
05-18-2016 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
05-17-2016 5:51 PM


Modulus writes:

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

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


It still remains that first things cannot be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 5:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 3:50 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 88 of 330 (784424)
05-18-2016 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
05-17-2016 11:39 PM


But that is not what he asked, and if the answer to any of those is simply that it has no cause then that is the explanation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2016 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:14 AM jar has responded

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


Message 89 of 330 (784426)
05-18-2016 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
05-17-2016 2:01 PM


NoNukes writes:

It appears to me that the OP is inherently defining explanation to mean 'describe how something results from its ultimate cause.'


I accept and have stated that 2nd and greater things can be explained by the things that came before. My specific assertion is that the origin of the universe cannot be explained. I could have been more clear about that in my proof.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 5:49 PM nano has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 90 of 330 (784427)
05-18-2016 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nano
05-18-2016 7:42 AM


Why is it 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 84 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:42 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 5:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
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