A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

Well, it's what giving an explanation means. If we do something else, we're not doing that. You mean something analogous to explaining why diamond is hard by describing its molecular structure? No, I don't think so. That's a different sort of "why" question. (Explaining why diamonds are hard doesn't explain why they exist in the first place.) Well, proving that there has to be something is logically equivalent to proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-contradictory: there would have to be two statements which were necessarily true of such a state of affairs which contradicted one another. But what could those statements possibly be about? "There exists x such that P(x) and ~P(x) ..." --- but by hypothesis there does not exist x.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I disagree. I think the OP's logic is faulty.There are descriptions of the origin of the universe that do not require a cause. For example if the origin of the universe were to be from a pre-existing, non-universe thingy that randomly produced the universe, then we might explain the creation of the universe from the thingy, without knowing how the thingy appeared.As a second example, if the creation of the universe involved the creation of time itself, there would again be no necessity for a cause, particularly if a cause is required to be prior in time to the effect.I think one huge hole in the OPs logic is that the statement that science is about cause and effect does not support the equivocation he follows in reaching his conclusion. Science is NOT necessarily about FIRST causes. The study of planetary orbits is scientific even without knowing the origins of gravity. We might talk about the origin of the sun without knowing how hydrogen became non-homogeneously distributed in the early universe.I could imagine another origin of this universe as one cycle of a big-bang, big crunch cycle. We could easily study the origin and development of this universe without having any clue as to how and why the cycle of bang-crunch ever started.

Well, it depends what you mean by "universe". I was taking it to mean "everything". If we take it to be some well-defined subset of everything, that would be different.

This would be true in the sense that the existence of our particular universe is not logically necessary. There are mathematically and logically consistent universes which are not our own. Example: A world with a few fermions fields and force fields living in flat spacetime, such a world could even have complex chemistry. In fact why not a universe based on Conway's game of life or some generalisation. So you'll never be able to say "This is why it is this particular mathematical structure".In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, quantum gravity demands that eventually a universe will come into existence from absolutely nothing. So here you do have an origin of the universe, being produced from nothing. Although you could still ask why is "nothing" governed by quantum mechanical laws.So you can have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from nothing, it's the presence of the laws you can't explain.

I believe my two conditions can be said to logically cover the entire set of possibilities for my purposes.Many "first things" and many "somethings that have always been here" are simply special cases of what I am talking about. In your suggestion, each "first thing" and each "Something that has always been here" is logically equal to the other for my purposes in that each has no cause. Given a scientific method based on cause and effect each would be equally unexplainable scientifically. While I admit your logic, I do not include these "multiples" for simplicity's sake and because each is logically equal to the other for my purposes.Logically, when populating a set (i.e. the beginning of the universe), one must start with a "first thing" or you must find your set already populated by "something that has always been there". I can't think of any other complementary, logical states to list. Therefore, I believe these two conditions can be said to logically cover all possibilities for my purposes.If I was trying to prove something scientifically then I would have to name all the possibilities. However, I am trying to prove something logically and when reducing an argument to its base, logical components it is necessary to group items into as simple a set as possible while maintaining its logical properties.Can you name other logical components that are complementary to the two found in my set?

My point is that it would also be consistent to have nothing at all. It depends what you mean by "nothing".

And yet I agrue that, logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that was always here". Both of which have no cause and therefore cannot be explained scientifically. Where is the hole in my logic?Edited by nano, : added quotation

Well, consider the set ( 0 , ∞ ). It has no first number in it, but it's different from ( -∞ , ∞ ).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Absolutely nothing" in this sense is simply the (or a) vacuum state of the theory. It's a position (or set of positions) in the moudli space of gravitational instantons. I've always been rather distressed at how easily various members of our community have claimed that it is the "nothing" of the "something from nothing" conundrum. It has simply developed as way of "shutting up" those who ask the naive question. Exactly.

Your point is hard to argue against. I would say that logic should count for something, but perhaps not everything.

(Also a response to Dr. Adequate)My problem is I don't know how to articulate that there is nothing but the laws, which allow a material "nothing" to develop into a material "something". It's hard to picture only "laws" existing.

And as with the last time this came up, I would suggest that "nothing" is ill-defined, and so it cannot be claimed that it is consistent in any way.Empty universes, zero sized universes, and other such "nothings" are easily entertained, and may be consistent under what ever theories they arise. But they're still not really the real "nothing".

Yes, I have heard of this, but I would say "Go back farther with your mind. Go out farther into the multiverse." Logically, there had to be a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".

Perhaps I should specify "scientific processes" instead of "scientific method"? It would not change my argument.

No, you're asserting that there must be a first thing. The fact that you think it's a logical conclusion from what you know about the world (and what the rest of us know about the world) is irrelevant. Logic is useful to a point, but it fails when it meets a paradox. A paradox just marks a boundary to what we can work out using thought alone.It's a complete cliche, but simply saying that there must be a first cause that solves your logical paradox simply introduces another - what caused the 'first' cause?'Sorry, your own logic points to the flaw in your logic.