Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 3:26 AM
346 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,312 Year: 23,918/21,208 Month: 1,883/2,468 Week: 392/822 Day: 2/50 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 1 of 320 (784251)
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


This is a followup to a previous discussion: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

For your consideration and comment I propose the following simple thought and logic experiment. FYI - for my purposes the term universe = multiverse = all of existence.

A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot be Explained

1. Consider an empty universe.
a. There is nothing to cause anything to happen.

2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.

  1. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.
  2. It doesn't matter what it is.

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

6. Ultimate Corollary - Given that the universe itself cannot be explained, then nothing in the universe can be ultimately explained. (This corollary was added to the original proof on 5/21/16 by nano with admin permission. See Message 166)

Thank you for your attention, your consideration and your comments.

**************************************************
Added on 10/23/16:

End of Discussion Proof Reformulation

Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist:

- It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain

- Or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain

- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

Edited by Admin, : Make text of link to thread be the title, and minor cleanup.

Edited by Admin, : More cleanup.

Edited by nano, : Added #6 to the proof with Percy's permission

Edited by nano, : changed "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence"

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-15-2016 9:06 AM nano has responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 10:11 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 28 by frako, posted 05-16-2016 7:05 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2016 10:33 AM nano has responded
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2016 10:06 PM nano has responded
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 3:26 PM nano has responded
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 05-19-2016 12:36 PM nano has acknowledged this reply
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 06-09-2016 5:29 PM nano has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2016 7:53 AM nano has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 320 (784253)
05-15-2016 8:53 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 3 of 320 (784255)
05-15-2016 9:03 AM


Is there any point to your assertion?
Is there a point or value to your assertion? Is it really just turtles all the way down?

Does it matter whether or not there is or was some first cause?

Are we not more interested in what caused this accident, what caused this fire, what caused this banana to taste better than that banana?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:18 PM jar has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15916
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 320 (784256)
05-15-2016 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


I think there's a problem in step 3:

nano writes:

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

How does it follow that an event with no cause has no explanation? We can explain the Casimir effect and radioactivity, and we can at least describe quantum uncertainty. I guess you could claim that any event resulting from quantum uncertainty has no cause, but arguing against that is that even though quantum uncertainty has yet to give up all it's secrets we still know a great deal about it. Entire libraries of books describing various facets of something is the opposite of the absence of an explanation, even if we still have a long way to go.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 9:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 15 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 5 of 320 (784257)
05-15-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
05-15-2016 9:06 AM


How does it follow that an event with no cause has no explanation?

Because explaining it would be the same as saying what caused it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-15-2016 9:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 6 of 320 (784258)
05-15-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


" Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises."

"Why is there something rather than nothing"

They may be unanswerable, if that is what you are driving at. However, the answer might be ‘There is no alternative to there being something’. Which would explain why there is something quite nicely.

Consider an empty universe.

Does it have space or time? Tongue in cheek question really, but it's there because there is a relationship between space and time and 'things'. I mean what if the size of the universe is just the answer to 'what is the longest distance between two things?'
I'm assuming you are making the first points not trying to make a cosmology argument.

However, in that spirit - can you prove an empty universe - ie., 'the state of nothing' - is possible? Can you disprove that there are some necessary entities? Because if they do exist then the explanation to their existence is that they are necessarily existent, which would disprove you. So for your proof to be a proof, it has to be able to rule out the alternatives that would disprove it.

It may be difficult to prove there are necessary entities, but it cannot be ruled out at this time, so maybe there is an explanation for the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 11:50 AM Modulous has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 7 of 320 (784260)
05-15-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
05-15-2016 10:11 AM


However, the answer might be ‘There is no alternative to there being something’.

Ooh, ooh, I though of an alternative: there not being anything. That would work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 10:11 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 8 of 320 (784261)
05-15-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2016 11:50 AM


Ooh, ooh, I though of an alternative: there not being anything

Is that a state of affairs that is an actual possible alternative, or is it just a grammatical alternative?

In other words, are there necessary entities?

If there are necessary entities there 'there not being anything' is not possible as those entities necessarily exist.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 12:40 PM Modulous has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 9 of 320 (784262)
05-15-2016 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
05-15-2016 12:29 PM


Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms. But how? It could not involve a state where there was some x for which P(x) and ~P(x), because there would not, in fact, be some x.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 12:29 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 12:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 10 of 320 (784263)
05-15-2016 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2016 12:40 PM


Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms.

Exactly. Since we can explain contingent entities based on other contingent entities or on necessary entities, and we can explain necessary entities as they are necessary. It is therefore possible that the universe can be explained.

To prove that the universe 'Cannot Be Explained' therefore, means proving no necessary entities exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 1:32 PM Modulous has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 11 of 320 (784264)
05-15-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
05-15-2016 12:54 PM


To prove that the universe 'Cannot Be Explained' therefore, means proving no necessary entities exist.

I thought I just did that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 12:54 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 1:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 12 of 320 (784265)
05-15-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2016 1:32 PM


I thought I just did that.

Evidently, I didn't notice. If I interpret your post as being a proposed proof of this then

quote:
a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms.

Sure, you said the word 'state'. State of what?

Can you prove it is possible for a 'state' of 'no entities' to 'exist'?

abe

The contradiction ultimately, if there is one,would between the nature of reality and the nature of any entities that are necessary according to the nature of reality.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 1:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 7:33 PM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7429
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 13 of 320 (784266)
05-15-2016 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2016 1:32 PM


I thought I just did that.

Here is the proof FOR necessary entities

Imagine a world where there are only contingent entities. Since all entities are explained in terms of other entities, this implies either an infinite regression or a circularity of causation. Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary. A necessary entity contradicts the statement there are only contingent entities. Therefore there cannot be contingent only entities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 1:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 7:15 PM Modulous has responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 14 of 320 (784267)
05-15-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
05-15-2016 9:03 AM


Re: Is there any point to your assertion?
"Is there a point to your assertion?"

My point is simply that how the universe began cannot be logically explained. I believe this proof proves it. Some may be interested in this proof and some may not. I offer it as it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 9:03 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 10:42 PM nano has responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 15 of 320 (784268)
05-15-2016 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
05-15-2016 9:06 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-15-2016 9:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2016 11:56 PM nano has responded
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-22-2016 6:38 AM nano has responded

    
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017