Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 220 (674349)
09-28-2012 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
09-27-2012 10:24 PM


Mine is a common usage within physics. The Doppler effect has a cause, the Casimir effect does not (or ultimately, the virtual particles that are responsible for the effect have no cause).
I am not complaining about any of the above. For example, I have no usage problem with your statement that the Casimir effect is caused by virtual particles.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Spelling of 'casimir'

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 10:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 62 of 220 (674363)
09-28-2012 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tangle
09-27-2012 5:34 PM


Tangle writes:
I'm saying that you can't use logic to solve this puzzle...
I disagree that the logic fails. You seem to think the end result of "unexplainable" somehow messes everything up. That is not correct. All it means is that it can't be explained. Its very simple and that is all I am saying.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that human reasoning has its limits, I am certainly willing to go there with you and agree.
Tangle writes:
If you believe that there must be a first cause and that is god. Then you MUST answer who caused god.
I'm not sure why you are bringing god into this, but if you must include the concept of "god" somehow, than the concept of "god" fits very nicely into my argument as either a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tangle, posted 09-27-2012 5:34 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 8:42 AM nano has replied
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2012 10:12 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 63 of 220 (674364)
09-28-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
09-27-2012 9:32 PM


Percy writes:
No, of course it's not agreed. I was pointing out that your statement that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect is incorrect because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no cause. These effects are scientific processes that have no cause. Claiming that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect isn't a semantic problem, it's wrong.
Percy writes:
Mine is a common usage within physics. The Doppler effect has a cause, the Casimir effect does not (or ultimately, the virtual particles that are responsible for the effect have no cause).
You seem to conveniently forget the underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that gives rise to virtual particles and, in turn, the Casimir effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 9:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 7:56 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 64 of 220 (674367)
09-28-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
09-26-2012 11:55 PM


Re: How far can one really go when the destination is infinite?
Phat writes:
Is it not logical that if we must journey an infinite distance, we may never find the answer?
I see what you did there!
I would say...That's OK! Fortunately, some aspects of the human mind are infinite as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 09-26-2012 11:55 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 65 of 220 (674369)
09-28-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Son Goku
09-27-2012 10:44 AM


Re: No first cause or eternal objects.
Son Goku writes:
No there isn't. You can set up universes like this, which although fictional, they are mathematically consistent. There is no first object, nor does any object live forever. They're not the real world, but they there is nothing logically inconsistent about them.
You are still ignoring the basic, logical function of how a set is populated.
Son Goku writes:
No, the difference between something being acausal and causal is not just semantics, its completely different behaviour. An acausal object has no definite future.
And yet there exists both causal and acausal effects governed by quantum mechanical law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Son Goku, posted 09-27-2012 10:44 AM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 8:03 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 66 of 220 (674370)
09-28-2012 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nano
09-28-2012 6:40 AM


nano writes:
You seem to conveniently forget the underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that gives rise to virtual particles and, in turn, the Casimir effect.
You seem to be conveniently avoiding the central issue. Do virtual particles have a cause? In the double-slit experiment, does which slit a particle goes through have a cause? Is there a cause behind whether Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:40 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 2:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 67 of 220 (674371)
09-28-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by nano
09-28-2012 7:11 AM


Re: No first cause or eternal objects.
nano writes:
And yet there exists both causal and acausal effects governed by quantum mechanical law.
Now this is perplexing. I thought NoNukes had a particularly good point when he thought you were using the definition of effect that requires a cause, but here you concede the existence of acausal effects. You originally said that the scientific method was based upon cause and effect, and when I challenged that you changed it to be that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect, and yet you concede here that acausal effects exist.
I hope you don't think my point has been that there's no cause and effect in science. The point is that there are, in your very own words, "both causal and acausal effects."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 7:11 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 68 of 220 (674373)
09-28-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nano
09-28-2012 6:19 AM


nano writes:
I disagree that the logic fails.
Disagreeing isn't very useful, you need to show how to resolve the infinite regress of everything needing to have a first cause.
You seem to think the end result of "unexplainable" somehow messes everything up. That is not correct. All it means is that it can't be explained. Its very simple and that is all I am saying.
No that's not all you're saying. You're saying that the logic doesn't fail but your logic is that there's a first cause - which I've shown you fails.
There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".
Like I say, that fails - you can't argue that we need a first thing except for the first thing.
But your overall premise is that
the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained
I have said that science has already provided an explanation - it may not be correct and it's certainly not something I understand or will ever understand, but it's still an explanation that doesn't rely on the paradox of a first cause.
I'm saying that science may be able to explain it and that it has nothing to do with logic
If, on the other hand, you are saying that human reasoning has its limits, I am certainly willing to go there with you and agree.
I'm saying we reached the limit of what you can just think your way out of a few thousand years ago. If we are able to understand this, it's going to come from science and mathematics, not logic.
I'm not sure why you are bringing god into this, but if you must include the concept of "god" somehow, than the concept of "god" fits very nicely into my argument as either a "first thing" or a "something that has always been here".
I'm bringing it in because when someone argues that everything has to have a first cause, it almost always means that they want to gemmy a god in there at the start. Then you say that the god didn't have a cause, He's alway been there - brilliant!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:19 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 4:00 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 220 (674379)
09-28-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nano
09-28-2012 6:19 AM


I disagree that the logic fails.
You're essentially Aruging from Incredulity. You posit that its either a first thing or an eternal thing, and then because you cannot think of any other options you assert that those are the only two.
"I can't think of another one" is not a good argument for them being the only ones. You would need to actually demonstrate that they're the only ones if you want to have any weight to your argument.
I've offered a third possibility and you haven't responded to it.
All it means is that it can't be explained. Its very simple and that is all I am saying.
But we don't know that. Maybe it can be explained. You haven't offered a good argument for it not being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:19 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 5:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 70 of 220 (674402)
09-28-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
09-28-2012 7:56 AM


Percy writes:
You seem to be conveniently avoiding the central issue.
No, rather I am trying to stay focused on the core logic of my argument. However, to answer your questions, it is the universe's underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that gives rise to quantum effects, both causal and acausal. Don't you agree? Quantum mechanical law could very well be a "first thing" in my argument or a "something that has always been here". I don't see the problem with that.
Percy writes:
You originally said that the scientific method was based upon cause and effect, and when I challenged that you changed it to be that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect, and yet you concede here that acausal effects exist.
Yes, as I have conceded previously I must rewrite my argument. The whole scientific method/process bit may be unnecessary at best or a misnomer at worst. I will do this in time. However, I maintain the core logic of my argument still works, if only based on set theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 7:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 2:23 PM nano has replied
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 09-28-2012 3:05 PM nano has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 71 of 220 (674403)
09-28-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nano
09-28-2012 2:12 PM


nano writes:
However, to answer your questions, it is the universe's underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that gives rise to quantum effects, both causal and acausal. Don't you agree? Quantum mechanical law could very well be a "first thing" in my argument or a "something that has always been here". I don't see the problem with that.
Let me summarize what you just said: There are acausal effects caused by quantum mechanical law.
Using synonyms for "cause" like "gives rise to" doesn't change what you're saying.
No, rather I am trying to stay focused on the core logic of my argument.
Your logic had a number of steps, and one them was about scientific processes being based upon cause and effect. This step was non-core? How does one tell core steps from non-core?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 2:12 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 72 of 220 (674407)
09-28-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nano
09-28-2012 2:12 PM


nano writes:
Quantum mechanical law could very well be a "first thing" in my argument or a "something that has always been here". I don't see the problem with that.
Perhaps. I must admit that this part of the conversation is going over my head.
But lets just say it's true. Let's say that Quantum mechanical law is the "something that has always been here."
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 2:12 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:22 PM Stile has replied
 Message 82 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:22 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 73 of 220 (674410)
09-28-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
09-28-2012 3:05 PM


But it doesn't really explain the laws, they're just taken as a given. And if it could, then we'd want an explanation for the explanation. In the end, we're either going to come up against something which simply is so, and has no explanation in terms of something else, or we're going to have an infinite regress of explanations, in which case this infinite sequence is itself something that just is so.
I think the dilemma is real. Either we have a chain of explanations which doesn't have an ultimate explanation, or we have something which, by virtue of being an ultimate explanation, cannot (by definition) be explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 09-28-2012 3:05 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 75 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 3:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 09-29-2012 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 74 of 220 (674412)
09-28-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2012 3:22 PM


I assume that what you just said has already been said, but this was in familiar terms. Your explanation makes sense to me, and the argument about sets didn't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 75 of 220 (674414)
09-28-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2012 3:22 PM


But the question...
But the topic just involves the origin of the universe.
If it is determined that the origin of the universe is "Just turtles all the way down", for this thread and topic is it necessary to know the origin of the turtles?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 4:33 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024