Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 9:24 AM
339 online now:
creation, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Stile (6 members, 333 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,482 Year: 15,305/29,783 Month: 1,249/1,502 Week: 6/241 Day: 6/36 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Percy
Member
Posts: 17749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 91 of 330 (784430)
05-18-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nano
05-17-2016 4:06 PM


nano writes:

As the proof shows,...

But you don't have a proof. You have a leap of illogic lacking justification and opposed by real-world examples.

...when you consider the first thing in the universe being without cause then the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

Since we have explanations for other uncaused things, like radioactivity and the Casimir effect, why not for the origin of the universe?

It would be nice to move the discussion forward, but repetitions of original assertions do not merit new arguments.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:06 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:17 AM Percy has responded
 Message 122 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 6:32 PM Percy has responded

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


Message 92 of 330 (784431)
05-18-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 10:10 PM


bluegenes writes:

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


I just meant that it is simple and logical.
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 95 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 10:20 AM nano has responded

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


Message 93 of 330 (784432)
05-18-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nano
05-18-2016 7:51 AM


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.

A quantum fluctuation is not a "thing" but a process that happens on its own volition. It's not like you need a loaded quantum fluctuation ready to pop before it happens. I suppose, in a sense, one might argue a quantum fluctuation comes from the void, but, it's not like one was just sitting around waiting to go off.

The process, not the thing, could have produced the first thing in this universe and it could have done so from the void. In this way the first thing in our universe may very well have a cause and may very well be explainable.

I know, the next question is where did the process come from. Might as well ask where the void came from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:51 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 6:42 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 330 (784439)
05-18-2016 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nano
05-18-2016 7:39 AM


A=B
The first thing is the universe at that point.

Or the first things are the universe at that point, but either way your "proof" doesn't account for these possibilities.

Your "proof" is limited to a universe that exists as a null set and then is populated with things. It doesn't account for other types of universes that aren't like that, like the ones I've brought up.

Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence that combine to form the first things that exist in the universe. It just pushes it back a step, but the first things that exist in the universe would have an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:39 AM nano has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:22 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


Message 95 of 330 (784442)
05-18-2016 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nano
05-18-2016 8:46 AM


nano writes:

I just meant that it is simple and logical.

Doesn't your O.P. assume reality as a necessary first thing without intending to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 8:46 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 6:46 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 330 (784446)
05-18-2016 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
05-18-2016 8:25 AM


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.

But "it just did" is not an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:25 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 330 (784447)
05-18-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
05-18-2016 8:44 AM


Since we have explanations for other uncaused things, like radioactivity and the Casimir effect, why not for the origin of the universe?

Well, in this context calling those things "uncaused" is at worst tendentious and at best misses the point.

When (for example) a radioactive atom decays, there may be no reason why it did so at that point rather than some other, but there are reasons why it did so: there is the atom and its nature.

This would not do for the origin of everything: if you had something that had a tendency to turn into everything, then you'd already have a thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 8:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 330 (784449)
05-18-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 10:00 AM


Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence ...

That's only a case that we need to consider if the concepts of "half-thing" and "quasi-existence" mean anything. When you think of a universe like that, what are you thinking of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 330 (784453)
05-18-2016 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 11:22 AM


Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.

It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 330 (784455)
05-18-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 11:29 AM


Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.

Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?

It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words. Can you picture an intermediate stage? I cannot. What would a half-existent banana look like? What would there be about it that would make us call it a half-existing banana rather than a completely existing ... uh ... ana?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 101 of 330 (784457)
05-18-2016 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 11:14 AM


But if "it just exists" is true then yes it is an explanation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 1:05 PM jar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 330 (784461)
05-18-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 11:34 AM


Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?

Because in the "proof", things aren't existing until they are in the universe. So a brane that's there before the universe isn't a thing that exists. The proof fails to take that possibility into account.

Also, it isn't necessary that there must first be one thing that exists in the universe. It could've be multiple things, or even partial things. There could be intermediate stages to the emergence of the first things.

QFT was already brought up, I wouldn't call a quantum field a thing that exists inside the universe, its more like a part of the universe, itself.

The concept that the universe was a null set and then something started existing inside it, is only one concept of how the universe began. Even if the proof succeeds in proving that that universe couldn't be explained, it doesn't account for other ways in which the universe could have began.

Using terms like semi-things quasi-existing wasn't an attempt to form a concrete idea, but rather to open up the questioning of the universe having to be a null set that is then populated with just one thing.

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words.

I can live with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 330 (784462)
05-18-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 12:27 PM


Because in the "proof", things aren't existing until they are in the universe. So a brane that's there before the universe isn't a thing that exists.

No that's not what nano means.

I can live with that.

People can usually live with the defects of their own reasoning, but they often find it difficult to convince others.

Words need to have referents. If you were to try to overturn (let us say) a theorem in Euclid by saying "But what if the triangle was a four-sided triangle", then your argument would not be persuasive because the phrase "four-sided triangle" does not mean anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 330 (784463)
05-18-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
05-18-2016 12:06 PM


But if "it just exists" is true then yes it is an explanation.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 12:06 PM jar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 330 (784464)
05-18-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 1:04 PM


No that's not what nano means.

What do they mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
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