Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2018 9:45 PM
270 online now:
edge, Faith, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (5 members, 265 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,958 Year: 8,781/29,783 Month: 1,028/1,977 Week: 166/380 Day: 50/66 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718192021
22
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 316 of 323 (793441)
10-29-2016 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by nano
10-29-2016 6:54 AM


nano writes:

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

You still don't seem to know what the Argument from Ignorance fallacy is. I wasn't claiming to have proved anything logically. I only described science's history as one of explaining the previously unexplained. Given that history, you're very unlikely to have found anything forever inexplicable.

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.

Yes, I know, but you're simply assuming there was once an "absolute nothing". There's no evidence of this. Assumptions with no evidence make for poor proofs.

Beyond that, science doesn't prove things. It assembles evidence in support of hypotheses that might one day gather a consensus and become a theory.

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

Discussion like your series of one and two line responses from yesterday? And you were reminded of a good bit yourself, to which you responded by simply declaring your original assertion again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by nano, posted 10-29-2016 6:54 AM nano has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 317 of 323 (793442)
10-29-2016 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by nano
10-28-2016 2:19 PM


Likewise, you can't explain something that came from absolutely nothing

Why can't you ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 2:19 PM nano has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 318 of 323 (793443)
10-29-2016 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by nano
10-28-2016 4:27 PM


... Thank you for calling my proof statement a tautology because it is true by necessity and by its logical form.

A tautology is mundanely true because it references itself, and is therefore meaningless.

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

universe = multiverse = all of existence

Ah, so you redefine words to maintain your dogma. Unfortunately for you, that does not make it true.

And I noticed you didn't address the rest of my post:

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

In fact all your replies seem to be one-liners to one issue at a time. I'll keep this in mind.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : quote


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 312 by nano, posted 10-28-2016 4:27 PM nano has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 319 of 323 (793444)
10-29-2016 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by nano
10-29-2016 7:29 AM


Tangle writes:

What if the first thing was nothing?

A confusion of terms and another red herring.

Actually it is an aspect of current thinking in physics, that out of nothing two things appear, a particle and an antiparticle that when combined become nothing.

So you have nothing, then two things, then nothing.

You can even get several particles all at once, but never a single one, just as this can be happening simultaneously ...

Thus for your tautology to be true the "First Thing" has to be nothing.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 315 by nano, posted 10-29-2016 7:29 AM nano has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5762
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 320 of 323 (793451)
10-29-2016 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by nano
10-29-2016 7:29 AM


nano writes:

A confusion of terms and another red herring.

I'm trying to show you that without defining 'nothing' you can't even start your argument. I don't know what nothing is, do you? Is it even possible for nothing to exist? How would you know?


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 315 by nano, posted 10-29-2016 7:29 AM nano has not yet responded

  
nano
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 321 of 323 (835046)
06-16-2018 5:32 PM


Very interesting interview with Leonard Mlodinow on "Why Is There Anything At All?" It gets good at

https://youtu.be/tzsE6xmfpTQ?t=6m7s

Highlights:

7:34 - "Physicists can't go beyond that"

8:10 - "Physics by definition can't go beyond that"

8:57 - "I don't require that physics or science explains everything. It's OK that there are things that aren't explained by it that we have to think about in other ways"


    
nano
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 322 of 323 (835097)
06-17-2018 6:49 PM


Another very interesting interview on "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?". This time with Steven Weinberg.

"Steven Weinberg is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles."

At 22:24 he says "We will never have an answer."

https://youtu.be/okiDJOK3hNU?t=22m24s


Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by frako, posted 06-18-2018 6:15 AM nano has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2771
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 323 of 323 (835121)
06-18-2018 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by nano
06-17-2018 6:49 PM


At 22:24 he says "We will never have an answer."

That may be, it could also be that the nature of nothing is such that it "wants" or has a tendency to express itself as a net 0 sum of opposites. Or -2+1+1=0.

Like 2 virtual particles coming in to existence from nothing and going back to nothing the whole universe is just nothing split in to opposite parts.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by nano, posted 06-17-2018 6:49 PM nano has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1718192021
22
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018