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

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

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

onifre

Member (Idle past 2979 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 55 of 220 (674267)
09-27-2012 12:50 PM

Reply to: Message 54 by nano
09-27-2012 12:34 PM

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.

It seems too simplistic to use words like "thing" or "something" when talking about the universe.

With that being said, a universe from nothing would be a universe that has no first cause or comes from something that is already there.

So there is your third condition...

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 54 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:34 PM		nano has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2979 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 88 of 220 (674464)
09-29-2012 8:07 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by nano
09-29-2012 6:59 AM

To me this is just a causal curtain to hide behind but I hear very little discussion about it.

There is nothing in it that's being hide behind, it's just a fact that at too small a scale 4D spacetime ceases to make sense/exist.

There a a few great discussions about it in the Big Bang and Cosmology threads.

I really want to hear a discussion about it, if not by scientists then by smart people like are found here.

Well you'll get both here, Cavediver and Son Goku are Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist respectively.

- Oni

This message is a reply to:
	Message 87 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 AM		nano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 91 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 11:23 AM		onifre has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2979 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 115 of 220 (675220)
10-08-2012 5:49 PM

Reply to: Message 114 by Tangle
10-08-2012 4:49 PM

Re: Always?

Nothing means something when it's defined by other things. But as soon as it really means nothing - on it's own - with nothing real or imagined to set it against, we, or at least I, can't understand what it means. And I suspect it means nothing - that is, it's meaningless.

I used to get into these discussions here before. I've since then strayed away and mostly lurk when they're going on.

The 'meaningless' description is how I see it too having been explained that very thing by Cavediver once before. I'm totally comfortable with that.

- Oni

This message is a reply to:
	Message 114 by Tangle, posted 10-08-2012 4:49 PM		Tangle has not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2979 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 220 of 220 (704160)
08-05-2013 12:13 PM

Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
08-02-2013 12:21 AM

Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

Well "we don't know" isn't an explanation. It's an honest answer to the question. Because, science tends to be very cautious when it says "we know".

Of course there are countless smarty pants working on the answer so it's likely we will eventually know for sure.

u say, but that is not a scientific explanation.

How can saying "I don't know" be an explanation?

- Oni

This message is a reply to:
	Message 214 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2013 12:21 AM		ICANT has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat, Zucadragon
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0