|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Forgive my absence. My wife had surgery and I am caring for her. And of course all non-causal explanation, ones which would be perfectly acceptable are ruled out both by fiat and by some questionable logic in the OP. Would it help to define "immediate explanations" vs. "the ultimate explanation"? I maintain that 2nd things and beyond can be immediately explained by the things that came before. However this is different than the ultimate explanation of the origin of the universe. And yes, the logic does lead one to say that ultimately nothing can be explained because ultimately the origin of the universe cannot be explained. Lets call this The Ultimate Corollary. I am in your debt for bringing it to my attention. It's why I come to this board. However I am not looking for an explanation for the first thing. I'm not challenging anyone to find one. I'm saying that simple logic leads to the conclusion that the universe cannot be explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Exactly. Nano has been clear that by "universe" he includes anything and everything that exists. His challenge is to provide a causal explanation for the first thing that existed. My real complaint is that I feel bait and switched. His proof does not demonstrate that the "universe cannot be explained" as is suggested by the title. Instead he demonstrates that if we place sufficient restrictions on what explanations are to be accepted, and if we define the universe to include other things that might conceivable explain the universe then we can remove the power to explain. I don't see such gymnastics as having any useful purpose. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Would it help to define "immediate explanations" vs. "the ultimate explanation"? I maintain that 2nd things and beyond can be immediately explained by the things that came before. However this is different than the ultimate explanation of the origin of the universe. No. I understand what you want. Most of my objection is to the title of the thread. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In 3 and 3a and 5 and 5a the O.P. tells us that the reason the first thing can't be explained is that it can't have a prior cause. So it gives us a universal law that things can't be explained if they don't have prior causes. Do you agree that the law is necessary to nano's proof and that he has made it clear that it would apply to any first thing (including laws themselves, which are suggested as possible first things)? I wouldn't have called it a law so much as an observation on the definition of an explanation. If one asks "Why did that happen?" one is necessarily asking for a cause just as a question beginning with "When" requires a time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: I wouldn't have called it a law so much as an observation on the definition of an explanation. If one asks "Why did that happen?" one is necessarily asking for a cause just as a question beginning with "When" requires a time. Whether you regard it as a law or a self-explanatory truth, a reality which includes it is one necessary thing required by the O.P. I'm not arguing that that particular reality is actually necessary, just that the O.P. is self-defeating if it assumes it. Nano needs to establish a proof that nothing could ever be explained by necessity, while avoiding the assumption that a reality in which his logic works is a necessary thing. Rather him than me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In plainer language, he assumes that it is true. Which it is: and this truth is independent of the existence of anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes: I wouldn't have called it a law so much as an observation on the definition of an explanation. If one asks "Why did that happen?" one is necessarily asking for a cause just as a question beginning with "When" requires a time. Dr. Adequate writes: In plainer language, he assumes that it is true. Which it is: and this truth is independent of the existence of anything. Thanks for the explanation. If the O.P. is defining explanation in the way you did, he could have made it clearer.
As the universe (meaning what's universal) encompasses everything, it cannot be explained by a prior cause is better than as the universe encompasses everything, it cannot be explained. Then we could thank nano for stating the obvious, and move on. As it is, many people will have taken "explained" in the broader sense, which would include your interesting explanation of a necessary truth above (I'll add logic and truth to reality and existence in my list of necessary entities). In this sense, that the universe could never be understood, he doesn't have a proof. You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Why would I limit my thinking to only our universe? Why would anyone? It's rather myopic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Then we could thank nano for stating the obvious, and move on. The problem is its not obvious to most people. They are looking for an explanation for the origin of the universe and won't find one. They involve themselves in academic constructs that mean nothing. The logic that the universe cannot be explained is simple and as you have said its "obvious".
You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality. Your statement is false. I clearly state in my proof that the first thing could have always been there. As such, it has no explanation. This is an obvious, logical truth if you are willing to see it. Most people seem to feel that the emperor must have clothes. It's obvious he does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nano writes: bluegenes writes: You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality. Your statement is false. I clearly state in my proof that the first thing could have always been there. As such, it has no explanation. This is an obvious, logical truth if you are willing to see it. I understand your O.P very well. Of course there could be a thing that has always been there, and there also could be a number of things that have always been there. The point about nothingness is that if it could really be, then no single thing could ever be explained as being necessarily there. The reason your proof is obvious is that it's just saying that if something didn't have anything before it, then it can't be explained by a prior cause. However, because that's not the only way to explain things, you don't actually have a proof that the universe is inexplicable. If true nothingness could be (where? nowhere?) and if you could establish that, then you could rule out necessity as an explanation. That's what your O.P. needs. That's why I suggested a reality in which the type of logic you're using works as being one of the necessary first things. If reality has to be, then it requires no causal explanation. So, could non-reality exist? Could non-existence be real? If not, we can put reality and existence as two explained (by necessity) things that have no prior cause and are always there. I can add some others as well, and if you want me to build our type of space time from there, I'll do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I'd like to point out that time plays no part in my proof. It could have been the first thing, yes, but then its existence can't be explained. And hence, the universe cannot be explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
However, because that's not the only way to explain things, you don't actually have a proof that the universe is inexplicable. Your statement is false. At the beginning, at the first thing in the multiverse-of-multiverses, there is no other way to explain things. With or without time it is always appropriate to ask "Why does the universe exist?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nano writes: I'd like to point out that time plays no part in my proof. It could have been the first thing, yes, but then its existence can't be explained. And hence, the universe cannot be explained. I think you're still missing the point about necessity. If an entity has to exist, then it requires no causal explanation. You're also stuck on one first thing. If one thing can exist without a prior cause, many can. Time might be one of them, and it doesn't exist in isolation, so there are still more before the kind of linear time cause and effect process we experience. I'm not describing the start of something here. These things, if necessary, would always be. If a "world" of pure nothingness is impossible, there must be some things that don't require causal explanations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nano writes: Your statement is false. At the beginning, at the first thing in the multiverse-of-multiverses, there is no other way to explain things. With or without time it is always appropriate to ask "Why does the universe exist?" The answer is because it has to exist. The universe is "somethingness". The only alternative is nothingness, which can't exist. Show that nothingness could exist, and you've shown that the universe isn't necessarily always there in some form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1318 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I think you're still missing the point about necessity. If an entity has to exist, then it requires no causal explanation.
No. Your concept of "necessity" plays no part in my proof. You seem to be missing the simple logic.
You're also stuck on one first thing. If one thing can exist without a prior cause, many can. Time might be one of them, and it doesn't exist in isolation, so there are still more before the kind of linear time cause and effect process we experience. I'm not describing the start of something here. These things, if necessary, would always be.
False. Many first things = Group A. Group A = the first thing. Simple logic. First things can't be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe can't be explained. If a "world" of pure nothingness is impossible, there must be some things that don't require causal explanations.[/qs]
So? First things can't be explained. That is part of my proof.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024