Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 9:34 PM
329 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (7 members, 322 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,822 Year: 25,428/21,208 Month: 1,055/2,338 Week: 176/450 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 271 of 320 (785747)
06-09-2016 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by ICANT
06-09-2016 6:24 PM


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

My question is if an absence of anything can actually be. That is, have the property of being. You know, existing. You seem to be saying "No" while also entertaining the idea of "Yes".

Wouldn't the opposite of existence have to not exist?

Does that make existence inevitable?

Is that an "explanation"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2016 6:24 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2016 2:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 272 of 320 (785753)
06-10-2016 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2016 11:01 PM


Hi Cat

Cat writes:

Is that an "explanation"?

No.

As I said non existence is way over your head.

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 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2016 11:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2016 6:34 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 273 of 320 (785760)
06-10-2016 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ICANT
06-10-2016 2:00 AM


Where and when can non-existence be?
ICANT writes:

As I said non existence is way over your head.

Oh where and when can non-existence be?
Its present absence always eludes me
I've heard it said
Look overhead
In Heaven non-existence you will see


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2016 2:00 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
nano
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 274 of 320 (785761)
06-10-2016 8:18 AM
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.

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."

For 2nd things and beyond I would agree with you, but by its very nature the 1st thing has only two possible origin states and both are unexplainable. The logic dictates it.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 06-10-2016 12:07 PM nano has responded
 Message 284 by Stile, posted 06-13-2016 9:39 AM nano has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13723
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 275 of 320 (785775)
06-10-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by nano
06-10-2016 8:18 AM


Re: Greatest proof of all time!
Stile writes:

The logic dictates it.


There is a singularity where logic breaks down.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 8:18 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 9:06 PM ringo has responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 276 of 320 (785783)
06-10-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by ringo
06-10-2016 12:07 PM


Not really. If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist, then normal 1st thing rules would apply and you could logically ask "Where did it come from?"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by ringo, posted 06-10-2016 12:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 06-11-2016 11:41 AM nano has responded
 Message 278 by Diomedes, posted 06-11-2016 12:10 PM nano has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13723
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 277 of 320 (785797)
06-11-2016 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by nano
06-10-2016 9:06 PM


nano writes:

If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist....


A singularity is not a thing. It is "where" (though it is not a place) you can no longer ask, "Where did it come from?" No logic is possible beyond that "point".

So I kind of agree with you: The universe can not be explained in the same way that a tree can be explained - but neither can you "prove" that it can not be explained. At some "point" (which is not a place) all logic goes offline; the screen goes blank.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 9:06 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:11 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 663
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 278 of 320 (785798)
06-11-2016 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by nano
06-10-2016 9:06 PM


Not really. If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist, then normal 1st thing rules would apply and you could logically ask "Where did it come from?"

Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.

It is easier to think of the universe and the singularity as different 'states'. Not unlike water changing from liquid to vapor. The universe, at the expansion event, went through a state change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 9:06 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2016 1:49 PM Diomedes has not yet responded
 Message 281 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:34 AM Diomedes has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9993
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 279 of 320 (785807)
06-11-2016 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Diomedes
06-11-2016 12:10 PM


Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.

Nicely stated. This indicates a problem with one of the premises in the argument, which is one of the reasons I find the OP of limited use. Some things may not be caused by any conventional meaning of that term, and for those things, requiring an explanation to be causal is simply silly.


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 278 by Diomedes, posted 06-11-2016 12:10 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 280 of 320 (785845)
06-12-2016 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by ringo
06-11-2016 11:41 AM


ringo writes:

At some "point" (which is not a place) all logic goes offline; the screen goes blank

I agree with you. There is a very real information wall at the beginning of all existence. All available information is contained in the 1st thing. It doesn't matter what it is. There can be no more discovery. This is why I say the 1st thing cannot be explained.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 06-11-2016 11:41 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
nano
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 281 of 320 (785846)
06-12-2016 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Diomedes
06-11-2016 12:10 PM


Diomedes writes:

Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.

I understand and agree. As a 1st thing, the singularity fits perfectly into one of the two origin states I have discussed. It has essentially "always been there", uncaused and uncreated. It has no beginning and thus cannot be explained. The time element, and causal relationships are not important in this origin state.

Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.

And they cannot be answered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Diomedes, posted 06-11-2016 12:10 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 1:32 PM nano has responded
 Message 285 by Diomedes, posted 06-13-2016 3:55 PM nano has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9993
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 282 of 320 (785860)
06-12-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by nano
06-12-2016 6:34 AM


It has no beginning and thus cannot be explained. The time element, and causal relationships are not important in this origin state.

These statements, in my opinion, make no sense. As used here, those statements are only premises or axioms which themselves are not subject to inquiry or a requirement to be demonstrated.

On the other hand, folks have every right to question them, and ask that they be demonstrated.


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 281 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:34 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by nano, posted 06-13-2016 7:56 AM NoNukes has responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 283 of 320 (785888)
06-13-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 1:32 PM


I'm not saying anything new. The two 1st thing origin states are clearly stated in the OP.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 1:32 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2016 12:11 AM nano has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3016
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 284 of 320 (785898)
06-13-2016 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by nano
06-10-2016 8:18 AM


Re: Greatest proof of all time!
nano writes:

For 2nd things and beyond I would agree with you, but by its very nature the 1st thing has only two possible origin states and both are unexplainable. The logic dictates it.

No, the logic does not dictate it.

Phew. That was easy. Thought you were going to have an actual discussion there or something.

This is the part where you actually describe how the logic dictates such a thing... if you can, anyway.
My point is that you can't do this because you can't "dictate" that an alternative cannot exist simply because you (or even "we") cannot think of an alternative right now.

That is a logical fallacy.

If order for the logic to "dictate it" you have to actually prove that any and all alternatives are impossible.

Good luck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 8:18 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by nano, posted 06-14-2016 1:15 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 663
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 285 of 320 (785942)
06-13-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by nano
06-12-2016 6:34 AM


Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.

And they cannot be answered.

In actuality, there is no logical segue way from the singularity to asking why there is something rather than nothing. Existence does not require a temporal component. Asking 'why' is also not really a valid question in that circumstance as you are now getting into philosophical constructs versus physics-based assertions. 'Why is there something rather than nothing' or 'Why does the universe exist' are along the same lines as asking 'why do I exist'. It is a question assuming that existence requires a purpose of some sort. And in actuality, existence is not in anyway predicated on the notion of any sort of purpose.

If you are asserting that the philosophical questions themselves cannot be answered, that is due to the ambiguity of the question itself and the fact that it is attempting to apply meaning to a mechanism that is not necessarily meaning-based.

Note that these statements are common in religious circles in the realm of 'why did god allow my loved one to die' or 'why did god let me get sick'. Once again, they are attempting to assert meaning or purpose to a specific situation or idea, but they don't, in and of themselves, have any absolute proofs. Which is why the response is often 'the lord works in mysterious ways'. The answer is just as ambiguous as the question.

Pertaining to the discovery around the nature of the universe, it is far more logical to assert the concepts of randomness and chance. Since we already know that quantum mechanics is chance-based, the nature of the universe and how it manifested from a previous state is more akin to a random event as opposed to any purposeful event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:34 AM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by nano, posted 06-14-2016 1:10 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017