A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

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. Some parts of the universe are extremely illogical (a-logical?)... they do not function logically consistent.
Therefore, even if you could list "the entire set of logical possibilities for the origin of the universe," it could still be irrelevant to the explanation for the origin of the universe. Is it? I don't think it is (but I might be wrong).
I think cause and effect is a tool that is strongly used by science. But I wouldn't say that science (or it's methodology) is based on cause and effect. Science is based on observation and prediction. Cause and effect is a great tool for such things in the environment we find ourselves in... but it is not necessarily a requirement.

Observation: All rocks I've ever seen are hard.
Prediction: All rocks are hard.That is some very simple science. It's wrong, but it's science. We can find soft rocks, and amend this little "theory" or we can not find soft rocks and keep this theory going.Rocks do not "cause" hardness. It is a simple observation and a simple prediction. It is simple science. No?

Are we sure about this?
I certainly agree that it's helpful, and generally the way we do things pretty much all the time.
But is it necessary?Can the answer be "there is something rather than nothing because this is the way things are." And then involve a description of how we know that things are "this way?"Maybe if there doesn't have to be something... then you are correct?
But maybe if there does indeed have to be something... then you could be incorrect if we are able to figure it out?I would say the odds are in the favour of us not being able to find out. But, that doesn't make it impossible, no?

Perhaps. I must admit that this part of the conversation is going over my head.
But lets just say it's true. Let's say that Quantum mechanical law is the "something that has always been here."
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?

I agree in the sense that at some point there is no explanation for asking "but why..." again. Sort of like the child's game...
My point is that if it turns out there actually is an ultimate explanation, it may be possible for us to understand it.
Of course we can ask "but why..." again, if we want. But it can also get kind of silly to ask such (given certain circumstances).For example:"What is the explanation for velocity?"
"Velocity is distance over time."
"But why is velocity disance over time?"...sure, we can ask the question, it's just a bit silly to anyone who understands what distance, time and velocity actually are and how they are used and understood.I am not saying that this "silly situation" is bound to happen, just that it might happen if the universe's origin can possible have an explanation that we can understand.Perhaps the origin of the universe is not something we're able to figure out or explain or gain knowledge about... in those cases, the "silly situation" is not a possibility.

Exactly.
What I'm trying to say is that the universe may have an answer that we can understand... the ultimate explanation may be "By definition" if our understanding of the universe can reach that point.Our understanding may not be able to reach that point. Perhaps by lack of intelligence, or perhaps by impossibility.But, it is possible that the ultimate answer to the universe is a "just so" explanation that comes out of the definition of the properties we can understand (like time, distance, velocity...). And, if it does, then the answer is possibly obtainable. And then, if it is possible and obtainable, then it is likely that it will be scientifically explained.
Therefore, however unlikely it may be, it is not "impossible" for the origin of the universe to be explained scientifically.

Again, exactly.
We're talking about the beginning of the universe. It is not known that the universe must have "a cause."
I'm talking about a "By definition" answer, a "just so" explanation for a possible situation that would likely include the universe's creation not having a cause. Therefore the question wouldn't be about "the causes of things." I understand. But, as with your previous example about the explanation for diamonds being about what causes diamonds... all your examples seem to hinge on the assumption that the universe must have a cause. But what if it doesn't?I agree that if we can somehow ascertain that the universe must necessarily have a cause, then it is impossible for the scientific method to explain that cause. (Then again, if we could know that, wouldn't we then know something about that cause?...) But that's not the situation I'm talking about. It doesn't seem rational to bring up example after example about things that have obvious causes to show that an explanation about the universe's creation cannot be explained because we don't know if the universe's creation must have a cause. The examples do not necessarily apply.

This post is just reqesting clarification of the particular example you've given. I don't fully understand what people mean when they use this example and just have a few questions. I may be using the wrong terminology, so I'll try to define my use of the term "particle" by using "ping-pong balls" as a visualization.Onto my questions...1. A particle running into a "wall of particles (one particle-thick)" is kind of like a ping-pong ball being thrown at a wall of ping-pong balls if the wall of ping-pong balls had large spaces in between them representing the distance that particles are from each other due to all the forces that holds things together and keep things being "mostly empty space."2. Going "through the wall" is considered just making it across?
That is, lets say we have a group of 10 ping-pong balls that are thrown against the wall of ping-pong balls. As the group of 10 is being thrown at the wall, they have their own forces holding them together (but still keeping them "mostly empty space").
2.a)Let's say the 10 ping-pong balls make it through to the other side, but all the forces holding them together are dispersed in some way such that the 10 balls now act more like individual balls than a group of 10 together. Is this considered "making it through"? And is the solution for which the probability is calculated?
2.b)Let's say the 10 ping-pong balls make it through completely in-tact (all their forces holding them together are still there, so they still look like a group of 10 ping-pong balls all together). Is this even possible? Or is the probability of this just even more smaller (and more complicated)?If 2.a) is "correct"... then I understand the idea.If 2.b) can actually "happen"... then I need to do some more learnin'.I really don't know which is correct, and would appreciate an answer. "Me needing some more learnin'" is certainly a perfectly acceptable answer and I don't proclaim to have much knowledge on the subject.That is, the way I understand it... even though the possibility of you running into a brick wall and making it through the other side can be calculated and is extremely small... such an idea involves all the "particles" that make you up getting through to the other side... but they are no longer in such an order as to identify "you" in the sense we all know and love. And, as long as the bonds between particles that make up "you" are strong enough not to disperse when they come up agains the brick wall (and all it's bonds and forces...) ...then you really don't have much to worry about at all.Or not?

Thanks for that, I found it very helpful.
So, tunnelling isn't so much as I was describing it as it is more like a wave bumping into a barrier which causes reflection and transmition.
Except... this isn't for things such as light reflecting off and also transmitting through glass... it's for actual particles because of their wave-and-particle nature.So, in taking the "guy running into a brick wall and coming out the other side" example to the absurd lengths I'm talking about... what we would really end up with is a half-a-guy on the far side of the wall and the other half-a-guy bouncing back as normal. Because of conservation of energy.Closer?
If so, I feel like I can understand that a lot better than I could the other way I was thinking about it anyway.

I think I understand that part. Right. I wasn't thinking of that *.gif, I was thinking of this one:

quote:

---

An electron wavepacket directed at a potential barrier. Note the dim spot on the right that represents tunnelling electrons

---

I thought that one represented the actual electrons? Or no?

Okay. Let me try again.If we have only one electron (or "particle")... there is a probability distribution for whether or not it will tunnel through a potential barrier.
(That's "potential" as in electrical potential... right? Not potential as in "a possible barrier"). However, after interfacing with the barrier, the electron will either be on the "other" side, or reflected back... but not both... and not "half an electron here, and half there."Now, if we have a wave packet (a bunch of electrons/particles)... and they come across a potential barrier... then there is a probability distribution predicting the result, as shown in the *.gif.
-It is possible, but not likely, that "most" of the electrons will appear on the other side, while only a few will reflect back.
-It is possible, but not likely, that "most" of the electrons will reflect back, while only a few will "tunnel" through (they don't actually tunnel through... that's just what it's called when they show up on the other side).
-It is possible, and likly, that roughly half (maybe a bit less) will tunnel through, and roughly half (maybe a bit more) will reflect back.
-It is possible to calculate the probability for all the electrons to tunnel through... but this is very small (has it ever been observed?)
-It is possible to calculate the probability for none of the electrons to tunnel through... but this is also very small (has it ever been observed?).And, the example of the dude going through the brick wall is the same as the wave packet, right? That is, because the barrier is so thick, and the "wave packet" is so large (the dude). The probability of even *any* electrons/particles tunneling through is very small. The probability of *all* the electrons/particles going through is still calculable (if you can estimate how many electrons are in the guy?)... but that's even incredibly smaller still.How's that?Edited by Stile, : "with" to "will" as pointed out below. Typo is kind of a funny word... because it contains "po" which is close to "poo". And poo is always a funny word. Always!!!

Thanks for the fix, and the confirmation. I knew this, but I think I had forgotten it... I thought that a probability function could be created to describe the tunneling for any 'wave of electrons' into any 'barrier.' But I certainly may be wrong...
I also seem to remember questions on tests specifying "a barrier 1 electron thick"... or something like that... which is why I stress on the thickness of the barrier. I forget the reasoning for it, though.
And, to be honest, I made my way though my electro-magnetism courses by memorizing the method and regurgitating it on tests... not by fully understanding the concepts. Go academia!! (Wasn't by choice, there just wasn't enough time for me to understand such things.. and all my other courses.. within the structured time period). Hopefully NoNukes or Son Goku or Dr. Adequate can see this and answer the questions of the peons!

How was your day? Whoops... I mean, how was your scientifically explained day? (-just thought I'd give you an easy one)