Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 9:28 PM
439 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,969 Year: 6,575/21,208 Month: 2,336/2,634 Week: 524/572 Day: 10/61 Hour: 1/0


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: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 316 of 320 (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
Posts: 785
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 317 of 320 (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: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 318 of 320 (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: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 319 of 320 (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: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 320 of 320 (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

  
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 © 2017