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 3:51 PM
204 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (8 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,765 Year: 18,588/29,783 Month: 533/2,043 Week: 85/386 Day: 35/50 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 166 of 331 (784589)
05-19-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
05-19-2016 3:10 PM


NoNukes writes:

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.


Forgive my absence. My wife had surgery and I am caring for her.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 3:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 11:34 PM nano has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 331 (784591)
05-19-2016 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by kbertsche
05-19-2016 5:37 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by kbertsche, posted 05-19-2016 5:37 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 331 (784592)
05-19-2016 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nano
05-19-2016 10:02 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nano, posted 05-19-2016 10:02 PM nano has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 169 of 331 (784593)
05-19-2016 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by bluegenes
05-19-2016 9:37 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by bluegenes, posted 05-19-2016 9:37 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by bluegenes, posted 05-20-2016 6:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 170 of 331 (784610)
05-20-2016 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2016 11:41 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2016 8:54 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 171 of 331 (784619)
05-20-2016 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by bluegenes
05-20-2016 6:26 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
In plainer language, he assumes that it is true. Which it is: and this truth is independent of the existence of anything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by bluegenes, posted 05-20-2016 6:26 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 5:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 172 of 331 (784663)
05-21-2016 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
05-20-2016 8:54 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2016 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 6:52 AM bluegenes has responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2016 1:19 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

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


Message 173 of 331 (784665)
05-21-2016 6:43 AM


Why would I limit my thinking to only our universe? Why would anyone? It's rather myopic.
    
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 174 of 331 (784666)
05-21-2016 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 5:06 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 5:06 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:04 AM nano has responded

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


Message 175 of 331 (784667)
05-21-2016 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by nano
05-21-2016 6:52 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 6:52 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:35 AM bluegenes has responded

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


Message 176 of 331 (784668)
05-21-2016 8:07 AM


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:59 AM nano has responded

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


Message 177 of 331 (784669)
05-21-2016 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 8:04 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:04 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 9:12 AM nano has responded

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


Message 178 of 331 (784670)
05-21-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by nano
05-21-2016 8:07 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:07 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:46 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

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


Message 179 of 331 (784671)
05-21-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by nano
05-21-2016 8:35 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:35 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:49 PM bluegenes has responded

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


Message 180 of 331 (784680)
05-21-2016 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 8:59 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:59 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 12:55 PM nano has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
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