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 2:23 PM
185 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,762 Year: 18,585/29,783 Month: 530/2,043 Week: 82/386 Day: 32/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 181 of 331 (784681)
05-21-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 9:12 AM


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

Again, I have dealt with this. If the first thing has always existed then it's origin cannot be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 9:12 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 4:38 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 331 (784684)
05-21-2016 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by nano
05-21-2016 12:46 PM


So? First things can't be explained. That is part of my proof.

First things cannot have causal explanations. They may have explanations that are not descriptions of causation.

And why is something beyond challenge simply because it is part of your proof? Everything your proof relies on as well as its conclusion can be challenged. The only possible exceptions are assumptions that you put outside of challenge by making them axioms. But even then, if we don't accept your axioms, then your proof becomes something that can be discarded simply by pointing out that the axioms may not reflect reality.


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 180 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:46 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 1:10 PM NoNukes has responded

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


Message 183 of 331 (784686)
05-21-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 12:55 PM


I am genuinely interested. What types of explanations are not causal? And all challenges are accepted and legitimate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 12:55 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 05-21-2016 1:18 PM nano has acknowledged this reply
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 4:10 PM nano has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 184 of 331 (784688)
05-21-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by nano
05-21-2016 1:10 PM


nano writes:

What types of explanations are not causal?


Our ancestors had an "explanation" of how flint works, which enabled them to work it into useful tools, which in turn enhanced their ability to survive. They didn't need an "explanation" of where flint comes from.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 1:10 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 185 of 331 (784689)
05-21-2016 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 5:06 AM


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

Why? They're not 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.

Your meaning is obscure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 5:06 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 331 (784697)
05-21-2016 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by nano
05-21-2016 1:10 PM


I am genuinely interested. What types of explanations are not causal? And all challenges are accepted and legitimate.

Just as an example, radioactive decay events are uncaused. But we can completely describe the probabilities of a decay event occurring in terms of the fields and charges present in an unstable atom. We know why a decay happens, but there are no precursors other than the existence of the nucleus itself for decay. We cannot point to any state of the nucleus and say, this state prompts a particle to leave the nucleus now.

Given all of that, the quantum mechanical model completely describes and explains why and how a nucleus emits an alpha or beta particle.

Given another view, we might explain your genealogy as a sequence of who begat whom where the begats represents some portion of the cause. Or alternatively we might present a simple list of your ancestors and their relations without detailing any causes or begatting. Each of those would be a explanation of your history. Yes there are causes involved, but those neither the causes nor their details, nor the motivation for those causes need be part of the explanation.

I can explain why metal is conductive without explaining where electrons and protons come from, I can describe how transistors work without explaining where Silicon atoms originate. There is no sense in which such descriptions are not explanations.

You have co-opted the word explanation to mean 'only causal origin stories traceable to ultimate causes'. I have no problem with that. It was my error to misinterpret the meaning of 'explained' in the title to have the dictionary meaning and to force that over the alternate definition in the OP.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 183 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 1:10 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by nano, posted 05-22-2016 5:38 AM NoNukes has responded

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


Message 187 of 331 (784699)
05-21-2016 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nano
05-21-2016 12:49 PM


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

Again, I have dealt with this. If the first thing has always existed then it's origin cannot be explained.

I'm wondering how long it will take you to realise that things that have always existed don't have an origin to explain. The clue is in the word "always".

I'm also wondering when you'll look up the word "explanation" and find out that explanations do not have to relate to prior causes.

Explain:

Why do cars have wheels?
Why is it impossible for pigs to fly?
Why does 3+3=6?
Why isn't China in North America?
Why can't someone be in two places at once?
Why is there something (the universe) rather than nothing?

Do you see what I mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:49 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 188 of 331 (784728)
05-22-2016 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 4:10 PM


You have co-opted the word explanation to mean 'only causal origin stories traceable to ultimate causes'.

I have said that there are immediate causes separate from the ultimate cause of everything.

If this is insufficient for you I would ask if you disagree with my base premise that the first thing cannot be explained. I believe you would say it is obvious. Very good then.

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.

In this way, even if my proof is a logical tautology it is still a useful one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 4:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 11:13 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2016 2:10 PM nano has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 189 of 331 (784729)
05-22-2016 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nano
05-15-2016 6:37 PM


Logically, the first thing can have no explanation. Since its the first thing there is nothing else to explain it. 2nd things and beyond can certainly be explained by the things that came before.

Not sure your logic follows. Just because something is yet to be sufficiently explained does not mean it cannot ever be explained. In an Infinite Regression model, you could say the creation of this universe was precipitated by the destruction of a previous one ad infinitum.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:37 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by nano, posted 05-22-2016 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

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


Message 190 of 331 (784739)
05-22-2016 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nano
05-22-2016 5:38 AM


Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
1) The universe is something
2) The universe encompasses all other things
3) Therefore, it cannot have an external cause
4) The universe exists
5) Therefore, the universe does not require an external cause in order to exist.
6) Therefore, an external cause isn't required in any explanation of the universe.

The first three are your proof.

The following question demands an explanation.

Q. Why is there a universe?

A. A universe would necessarily exist in all possible realities, because there has to be at least one thing to be real.

If X doesn't require Y in order to exist, the existence of X can be explained without reference to Y.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nano, posted 05-22-2016 5:38 AM nano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:17 AM bluegenes has responded

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


Message 191 of 331 (784740)
05-22-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by bluegenes
05-22-2016 11:13 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
A. A universe would necessarily exist in all possible realities, because there has to be at least one thing to be real.

Why isn't it possible for no thing to be real?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 11:13 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 11:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 192 of 331 (784741)
05-22-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr. Adequate writes:

Why isn't it possible for no thing to be real?

Ask Nano to explain why it is possible.

That's what needs to be positively demonstrated in order to make the claim in the O.P.

You'll have to get him to understand the point first.

Edited by bluegenes, : I'd say possible realities require existence, which requires at least one thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:53 AM bluegenes has responded

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


Message 193 of 331 (784742)
05-22-2016 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by bluegenes
05-22-2016 11:47 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Ask Nano to explain why it is possible.

Because it is logically consistent: there is no contradiction to be derived from applying logic to the proposition ∃x : x=x.

If you want to claim that it's impossible, the ball's in your court, if you want to conjure universes into existence a priori, then you may have to do some actual work. You may indeed find it beyond your powers: no-one has as yet deduced so much as grain of sand by mere ratiocination, so I should be surprised if you could deduce a cosmos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 11:47 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 194 of 331 (784744)
05-22-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 11:53 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr. Adequate writes:

Because it is logically consistent:

You would need to demonstrate that your logic can exist in the absence of existence and describe the non-place that it non-exists in.

How is a non-existent reality a possible one?

Dr Adequate writes:

If you want to claim that it's impossible, the ball's in your court, if you want to conjure universes into existence a priori, then you may have to do some actual work.

Are you suggesting that something that necessarily doesn't require a cause requires a causal explanation?

And are you suggesting that a claim that the universe cannot be explained is proven if no-one can currently explain it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 12:33 PM bluegenes has responded

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


Message 195 of 331 (784745)
05-22-2016 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by bluegenes
05-22-2016 12:29 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
You would need to demonstrate that your logic can exist in the absence of existence and describe the non-place that it non-exists in.

Since I do not claim that, I don't need to demonstrate it.

How is a non-existent reality a possible one?

By virtue of, y'know, being possible. For example, the reality in which I am wearing my underpants on my head is possible, according to any meaningful usage of that word. Yet that "reality" is non-existent. If you object to your usage of the word "reality" in this context, you should probably stop using it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 12:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 12:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
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