|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I don't think one can prove God exists, but I do think its possible to prove that the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained. I do this by using logic and/or set-theory. Therefore, I propose a discussion of my proof with an eye towards identifying flaws in my logic.
Here is my proof: 1. Consider the beginning of the universe.2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here". 3. By logical definition, a true "first thing" has no cause, since otherwise it would not be a first thing. 4. By logical definition, "something that has always been here" has no cause, since it has always been here. 5. The "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" encompass the entire set of logical possibilities for the origin of the universe. 6. The scientific method is based on cause and effect. 7. Since the "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" have no cause, they cannot be scientifically explained. 8. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained. The word "universe" can be freely exchanged with "multiverse" if you wish. I originally posted this at http://www.mektek.net/...-cannot-be-scientifically-explained, but I think I need a more focused forum for this subject. So that is what brings me here today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I envision this as not a scientific proof, but rather one derived from classical Logic and logical definitions. Remember that Logic class you might have taken in college? It's usually part of the Philosophy department. That's what I am going for.
For example: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Or maybe something like "If A and B are true then C must be true" if given certain logical, albeit in this example case hypothetical, associations. I don't think there is much debate about the importance of cause and effect in the Scientific Method. So, in my "proof", everything hangs on what the logical definition of "first" is and what "has always been here" logically means. It also relies on how a set is populated and defined. One key question is "Can the set of all possibilities at the origin of the universe be reduced, simplified and described logically as: Either1) There was a "first thing" or 2) "Something has always been here". Indeed, I believe this is the primary crux of my argument and may be the more interesting place to start. Nevertheless, I can certainly simplify and streamline my "proof". I'm not sure about the input from science only. Edited by nano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Pressie writes:
No, the crux is that all the possibilties can't be reduced to just two things. You forget about other possibilties such as: and/or3.There were "first things". and/or 4. Some things have always been there. The possibilities are endless. Why restrict it to two? I believe my two conditions can be said to logically cover the entire set of possibilities for my purposes. Many "first things" and many "somethings that have always been here" are simply special cases of what I am talking about. In your suggestion, each "first thing" and each "Something that has always been here" is logically equal to the other for my purposes in that each has no cause. Given a scientific method based on cause and effect each would be equally unexplainable scientifically. While I admit your logic, I do not include these "multiples" for simplicity's sake and because each is logically equal to the other for my purposes. Logically, when populating a set (i.e. the beginning of the universe), one must start with a "first thing" or you must find your set already populated by "something that has always been there". I can't think of any other complementary, logical states to list. Therefore, I believe these two conditions can be said to logically cover all possibilities for my purposes. If I was trying to prove something scientifically then I would have to name all the possibilities. However, I am trying to prove something logically and when reducing an argument to its base, logical components it is necessary to group items into as simple a set as possible while maintaining its logical properties. Can you name other logical components that are complementary to the two found in my set?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Logic fails at your 2nd point. According to several physicists - most notably Prof Hawking - the universe as we see it now, arose from nothing. That isn't a concept you can't just think your way out of - you need some mathematical ability to play with the madness of quantum theory. And yet I agrue that, logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that was always here". Both of which have no cause and therefore cannot be explained scientifically. Where is the hole in my logic? Edited by nano, : added quotation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Stile writes: Perhaps.But even if true, applying logic to the universe doesn't necessarily mean anything. The universe isn't constrained by your application of logic. Your point is hard to argue against. I would say that logic should count for something, but perhaps not everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, I have heard of this, but I would say "Go back farther with your mind. Go out farther into the multiverse." Logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".
Maybe two 1/2 universes combined to form a whole universe.Have you heard of the Ekpyrotic universe model with the colliding branes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes: Not only is "cause and effect" not mentioned in the scientific method, the scientific method was used to discover effects which have no apparent cause. Perhaps I should specify "scientific processes" instead of "scientific method"? It would not change my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Son Goku writes: Not so. Imagine a universe where an object lives for one second before dying and creating the next object.... I think you are ignoring how your proposed sets (universes) populate. Surely, logically, there must be a "first thing" or "something that has always been there" in your sets. Also, there may be quantum mechanical predications that make no use of cause and effect, but I'm sure they make use of quantum mechanical laws. It's really just semantics, isn't it?. Lets use "scientific processes" in place of "scientific method".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: But surely that's his point: that eventually we must run up against something inexplicable --- either by virtue of being a first cause, or by virtue of not having a first cause. Exactly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes: Yes, that's true, it would not change your argument and it would still be wrong, because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no apparent cause. You seem to be using semantics to point out that my argument is not perfectly formed. Agreed. Nevertheless, the logic of how a set is populated remains. You must have a first thing or you must find your set with something that is already there. When applied to the origin of the universe, both conditions have no cause and are therefore unexplainable. ( at Dr. A)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes: No, you're asserting that there must be a first thing. The fact that you think it's a logical conclusion from what you know about the world (and what the rest of us know about the world) is irrelevant. Logic is useful to a point, but it fails when it meets a paradox. A paradox just marks a boundary to what we can work out using thought alone. Surely the logic of how a set is populated dictates that there must be a first thing or something that is already there. If not, please suggest a complementary third condition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I disagree that the logic fails. You seem to think the end result of "unexplainable" somehow messes everything up. That is not correct. All it means is that it can't be explained. Its very simple and that is all I am saying. I'm saying that you can't use logic to solve this puzzle... If, on the other hand, you are saying that human reasoning has its limits, I am certainly willing to go there with you and agree.
Tangle writes: If you believe that there must be a first cause and that is god. Then you MUST answer who caused god. I'm not sure why you are bringing god into this, but if you must include the concept of "god" somehow, than the concept of "god" fits very nicely into my argument as either a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Percy writes: No, of course it's not agreed. I was pointing out that your statement that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect is incorrect because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no cause. These effects are scientific processes that have no cause. Claiming that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect isn't a semantic problem, it's wrong. Percy writes: Mine is a common usage within physics. The Doppler effect has a cause, the Casimir effect does not (or ultimately, the virtual particles that are responsible for the effect have no cause). You seem to conveniently forget the underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that gives rise to virtual particles and, in turn, the Casimir effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Phat writes: Is it not logical that if we must journey an infinite distance, we may never find the answer? I see what you did there! I would say...That's OK! Fortunately, some aspects of the human mind are infinite as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1291 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Son Goku writes: No there isn't. You can set up universes like this, which although fictional, they are mathematically consistent. There is no first object, nor does any object live forever. They're not the real world, but they there is nothing logically inconsistent about them. You are still ignoring the basic, logical function of how a set is populated.
Son Goku writes: No, the difference between something being acausal and causal is not just semantics, its completely different behaviour. An acausal object has no definite future. And yet there exists both causal and acausal effects governed by quantum mechanical law.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024