Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 6:39 AM
383 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 381 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,847 Year: 13,453/21,208 Month: 2,935/3,605 Week: 277/933 Day: 19/154 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9529
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 256 of 320 (785667)
06-08-2016 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 10:05 AM


The empty set is not nothing. It exists, has properties, and can have operations against it.

Beyond that, your initial argument was something a bit different. You simply quoted some mathematical symbols and suggested we look at them. But the braces you drew are just delineation. They don't represent anything physical.

Your current argument, as I see it, is akin to telling me that I have a stamp collection, but that my collection has no stamps and never did. Actually, I don't have a stamp collection and I don't want one.

The OP erroneously views the universe as a container that can be empty.

Interesting argument. Maybe you have something here. Before I ask you what you mean, I'll read more of what you've already posted.

If you want to analogize the universe as an empty set

But perhaps this does not. Arguments from analogy are not, in general, valid. Analogies are good for illustrating, but not for necessarily for proving an argument to be correct.

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 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 10:05 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 9:06 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 257 of 320 (785677)
06-08-2016 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 3:43 PM


Hi Cat

Cat writes:

Existence is a property that things have, it does not exist independent of things. Existence cannot be a prerequisite for things anymore than things can be a prerequisite for existence. They're intertwined, one does not come before the other.

So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.

Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?

But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.

It would be an uncaused eternal entity.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 9:01 PM ICANT has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 258 of 320 (785678)
06-08-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by ICANT
06-08-2016 8:45 PM


So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.

If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing?

Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?

I dunno, he's not saying much more. In order to go from non-existence to things existing, you have to put non-existence inside some kind of container and then have an outside influence kick off the first things.

The problem with the OP is that our universe doesn't fit that model. At best, it's a proof that a particular universe isn't "explainable", it's just not describing this universe.

But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.

It would be an uncaused eternal entity.

Sort of, but it doesn't really matter if that universe contains things or not. And if you make, for that universe, time in the past direction finite then you escape the otherwise inevitable heat death.

But I reject the concept of an "empty universe". The universe is the sum of all things, not a container that may or may not have things in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2016 8:45 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2016 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 259 of 320 (785679)
06-08-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by NoNukes
06-08-2016 5:13 PM


Beyond that, your initial argument was something a bit different. You simply quoted some mathematical symbols and suggested we look at them. But the braces you drew are just delineation. They don't represent anything physical.

I was just arguing that the empty set is not nothing.

Your current argument, as I see it, is akin to telling me that I have a stamp collection, but that my collection has no stamps and never did. Actually, I don't have a stamp collection and I don't want one.

It's that a stamp collection that contains no stamps isn't a stamp collection at all.

Can you have a chemical element with no atoms?

Can you have a society with no people?

Can you have a universe with no things?

I say no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2016 5:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2016 11:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9529
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 260 of 320 (785680)
06-08-2016 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 9:06 PM


It's that a stamp collection that contains no stamps isn't a stamp collection at all.

Regardless of whether I never had a stamp collection, or whether I have just bought an album in anticipation of collecting stamps, or whether some rogue came by and stole all the stamps I've spent 10 years collecting, we might correctly say that the set of all stamps that I possess is described by the null set. In the latter case we might still say I own a stamp set, but that it is not in my possession.

In short, the null set does not help us understand the states of existence or what came before.


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 259 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 9:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 261 of 320 (785704)
06-09-2016 8:25 AM


The OP is a thought experiment and a proof. Many of you are too distracted by the empty universe. The empty universe is not integral to the proof.

It’s very simple: 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.

Also, anyone who says “We don’t know what we don’t know” is arguing from ignorance and takes the weakest of all possible positions. I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.


Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2016 9:02 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 06-09-2016 9:45 AM nano has responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3084
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 262 of 320 (785705)
06-09-2016 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by nano
06-09-2016 8:25 AM


Easy explanation
nano writes:

I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.

You could state that, logically, the petticoat of the universe will never be explained. That's because it doesn't wear a petticoat, cannot wear a petticoat, and doesn't require one.

It doesn't have an origin, either, because an origin would be part of it.

The universe has to be there, no thing can exist as an alternative, and that clearly explains its existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by nano, posted 06-09-2016 8:25 AM nano has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 263 of 320 (785706)
06-09-2016 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by nano
06-09-2016 8:25 AM


Greatest proof of all time!
nano writes:

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.

How do you differentiate between something that is "impossible to explain" temporarily right now with the information we have currently available to us... versus something that is "impossible to explain" for all time, regardless of what information may come to us in the future?

Without being able to read the future, or know about information we don't have right now... I don't see how you're able to do such a thing.

If you add "...from what we've able to gather right now." To the end of your proof then it makes more logical sense.
Without that, the answer is "well, we might learn something new tomorrow, so your proof is useless for the future."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by nano, posted 06-09-2016 8:25 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Phat, posted 06-09-2016 5:32 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 274 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 8:18 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 264 of 320 (785712)
06-09-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 4:07 PM


Cat Sci writes:

Can you have a universe with no things?


Can you have space with nothing in it? I think you can.

As I understand it, the universe is the space; the "things" in it are just "wrinkles" in the space. So yes, I would say you could have a universe with no things - perfectly flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 06-09-2016 5:31 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 265 of 320 (785732)
06-09-2016 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 9:01 PM


H Cat

Cat writes:

If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing?

Non existence has no properties as it is the opposite of existence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 9:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2016 5:23 PM ICANT has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 266 of 320 (785733)
06-09-2016 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
06-09-2016 4:28 PM


Cat writes:

If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing?

Non existence has no properties as it is the opposite of existence.

Then it cannot be, and you cannot talk of if it is.

Edited by Cat Sci, : is > it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2016 4:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2016 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9307
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 267 of 320 (785734)
06-09-2016 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


quote:
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)


As a Christian, I would agree that God is an uncaused first cause...but would not agree that just because a Creator cannot be explained or defined it then follows that creation itself has a similar limitation.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

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

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9307
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 268 of 320 (785735)
06-09-2016 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
06-09-2016 11:52 AM


Wrinkles In Space
ringo writes:

Can you have space with nothing in it? I think you can.
As I understand it, the universe is the space; the "things" in it are just "wrinkles" in the space. So yes, I would say you could have a universe with no things - perfectly flat.

No wonder my face has wrinkles! I knew there had to be an explanation....

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 06-09-2016 11:52 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9307
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 269 of 320 (785736)
06-09-2016 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Stile
06-09-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Greatest proof of all time!
stile writes:

How do you differentiate between something that is "impossible to explain" temporarily right now with the information we have currently available to us... versus something that is "impossible to explain" for all time, regardless of what information may come to us in the future?

Without being able to read the future, or know about information we don't have right now... I don't see how you're able to do such a thing.

I agree. Never say never!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Stile, posted 06-09-2016 9:45 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 270 of 320 (785737)
06-09-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2016 5:23 PM


Hi Cat

Cat writes:

Then is cannot be, and you cannot talk of if it is.

Just because you can't fathom non existence does not mean there could not be an absence of anything.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2016 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2016 11:01 PM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017