Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 8:43 PM
354 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,695 Year: 19,301/21,208 Month: 2,060/3,111 Week: 281/574 Day: 77/46 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
17181920
21
22Next
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2694
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 301 of 320 (793388)
10-27-2016 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nano
10-26-2016 4:43 PM


The First Thing is the first thing to ever exist.

Some modern theoretical physicist believe the universe can and will create itself from nothing. This is due to the nature of the laws of physics.

We already concluded there is no explanation for where these fundamental laws have come from.

So your premise that the universe can not be explained is flawed.
It can be explained by using the laws of physics.

what can not be explained is where these laws came from.
There may or may not be a answer. Maybe the answer resides in another universe, Or maybe the laws are self existent.

Your right if you mean to say that no one can explain where the laws of physics came from. But the universe's existence is a direct result of the Big Bang. That has pretty much become the most accepted theory to date.

http://www.pbs.org/...s-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-explained

Edited by 1.61803, : link and meme


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nano, posted 10-26-2016 4:43 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2016 8:08 AM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 309 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 2:31 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1696
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 302 of 320 (793404)
10-28-2016 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by 1.61803
10-27-2016 10:47 AM


What I really, really can't understand is the argument that some types of creationists think that, because the Universe started or maybe not started to exist billions of years ago; that is supposed to provide 'scientific' evidence for the existence of Gods today. It doesn't.

Their arguments just don't make any sense to me.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by 1.61803, posted 10-27-2016 10:47 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by 1.61803, posted 10-28-2016 11:30 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2694
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 303 of 320 (793411)
10-28-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Pressie
10-28-2016 8:08 AM


Hi Pressie,

You will live longer and have less stress if you start to give zerofucks about what crazy people think.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2016 8:08 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 304 of 320 (793417)
10-28-2016 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by RAZD
10-26-2016 5:04 PM


RAZD writes:

But the "First Thing" is not the universe, it is in the universe.

This has been dealt with previously. It doesn't matter what the first thing is, it is the first thing to ever exist anywhere. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2016 5:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2016 4:16 PM nano has responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 305 of 320 (793418)
10-28-2016 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Tangle
10-26-2016 5:54 PM


Tangle writes:

Nope, the first thing is that we don't understand the first thing about what something and nothing are.

Nice Red Herring, but I'm not biting. You might want to start your own thread though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2016 5:54 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 306 of 320 (793419)
10-28-2016 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Percy
10-27-2016 7:29 AM


Percy writes:

This has already been explained in this thread, but may as well do it again.

You are presenting an Argument from Ignorance and it is a logical fallacy. It is especially wrong in this case where I have shown an explanation to be logically impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 10-27-2016 7:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 10-28-2016 3:52 PM nano has responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 307 of 320 (793421)
10-28-2016 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by vimesey
10-27-2016 9:14 AM


vimesey writes:

You can say it can't be explained using the precepts of logic which philosophers have developed over a few centuries. However, unless you can do the math...

You can't explain something that has always existed and has no beginning. Likewise, you can't explain something that came from absolutely nothing (where by definition there is no math).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by vimesey, posted 10-27-2016 9:14 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by vimesey, posted 10-29-2016 8:11 AM nano has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 308 of 320 (793422)
10-28-2016 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by New Cat's Eye
10-27-2016 9:57 AM


Cat Sci writes:

You are wrong about those logical fallacies.

Honestly you are wrong in every one of your assertions. Please look again and give it more thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-27-2016 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 309 of 320 (793423)
10-28-2016 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by 1.61803
10-27-2016 10:47 AM


1.61803 writes:

Your right if you mean to say that no one can explain where the laws of physics came from.

Yes, as has been discussed previously in this thread, the underlying physical laws of the universe could be the first thing. My proof still stands no matter what the first thing is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by 1.61803, posted 10-27-2016 10:47 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Tangle, posted 10-28-2016 5:29 PM nano has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 310 of 320 (793425)
10-28-2016 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by nano
10-28-2016 1:47 PM


nano writes:

Percy writes:

This has already been explained in this thread, but may as well do it again.


You are presenting an Argument from Ignorance and it is a logical fallacy. It is especially wrong in this case where I have shown an explanation to be logically impossible.

I don't think you know what Argument from Ignorance fallacy is. What you referred to as saying, "We don't know what we don't know" (I'd state it differently, but we'll use yours for now) is a statement concerning ignorance. It is not the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

You are assuming that something cannot come from nothing. We already know this isn't true. Since your "proof" includes this incorrect assumption, it is wrong.

But something coming from nothing may not be the explanation for the origin of the universe. We cannot currently explain how the universe came to be, and we don't know whether or not we'll ever have an explanation.

I don't see the point of repeating, "I've proved it, I've proved it, I've proved it, can't you see I've proved it," instead of discussing the issues people have raised with your "proof".

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 1:47 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by nano, posted 10-29-2016 6:54 AM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18814
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 311 of 320 (793430)
10-28-2016 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by nano
10-28-2016 1:34 PM


... It doesn't matter what the first thing is, it is the first thing to ever exist anywhere. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.

I'm just trying to understand why you think a tautology is an important statement.

If the "first thing" is outside the universe (see brane theory for creating universes) how is it a "first thing" for the universe?

Or consider two universes (physics allows multiple universes to exist) ... is a "first thing" in one also the "first thing" in the other or did one come before the other?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 1:34 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 4:27 PM RAZD has responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 312 of 320 (793431)
10-28-2016 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by RAZD
10-28-2016 4:16 PM


Its important because it is not generally recognized. Most people don't think about it, yet it is logically obvious. Thank you for calling my proof statement a tautology because it is true by necessity and by its logical form.

As I have stated, when I say "universe" I mean:

universe = multiverse = all of existence

The First Thing is the first thing to exist anywhere, taking into account all of existence and not just this universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2016 4:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2016 8:38 AM nano has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4891
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 313 of 320 (793434)
10-28-2016 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by nano
10-28-2016 2:31 PM


nano writes:

My proof still stands no matter what the first thing is.

What if the first thing was nothing?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 2:31 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by nano, posted 10-29-2016 7:29 AM Tangle has responded

  
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 314 of 320 (793438)
10-29-2016 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Percy
10-28-2016 3:52 PM


Percy writes:

I don't think you know what Argument from Ignorance fallacy is. What you referred to as saying, "We don't know what we don't know" (I'd state it differently, but we'll use yours for now) is a statement concerning ignorance. It is not the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

False. You are presenting an unknown future discovery to make your argument. It is in fact an Argument from Ignorance.

You are assuming that something cannot come from nothing. We already know this isn't true.

False. Your nothing is a quantum nothing. If you have been paying attention you know I am referring to an absolute nothing. I have called it the null set.

I don't see the point of repeating, "I've proved it, I've proved it, I've proved it, can't you see I've proved it," instead of discussing the issues people have raised with your "proof".

False. I am discussing issues as they are raised and offering reminders of what has already been discussed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 10-28-2016 3:52 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 10-29-2016 7:45 AM nano has not yet responded

    
nano
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 104
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 315 of 320 (793439)
10-29-2016 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Tangle
10-28-2016 5:29 PM


Tangle writes:

What if the first thing was nothing?

A confusion of terms and another red herring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Tangle, posted 10-28-2016 5:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2016 8:48 AM nano has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Tangle, posted 10-29-2016 12:06 PM nano has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
17181920
21
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017