Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 76 of 220 (674415)
09-28-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tangle
09-28-2012 8:42 AM


Tangle writes:
...you need to show how to resolve the infinite regress of everything needing to have a first cause.
Why? What requirement is there for this? My whole point is that it can't be explained.
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.
I am using the logic of how sets populate to show that there must be a first thing or something that has always been there. A true first thing would by definition have no cause as would a something that has always been there.
Like I say, that fails - you can't argue that we need a first thing except for the first thing.
A true first thing would by definition have no cause.
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.
Are you referring to the theory that quantum fluctuations created the universe? In this case my logic leads to the underlying structure of quantum law being the first thing, which would by definition have no cause and would therefore be unexplainable. I am fine with this. All I am saying is that it would be unexplainable.
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!
As you say, you brought it up. I said the concept of "god" fits into my argument and doesn't upset my applecart, but it certainly seems to have upset yours!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 8:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 6:41 PM nano has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 220 (674417)
09-28-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
09-28-2012 3:55 PM


Re: But the question...
But the topic just involves the origin of the universe.
Well, it depends what you mean by "universe". If you just mean the bubble of spacetime that expanded in a Big Bang, then that might in principle be explained in terms of something else. But if you mean everything, then we have a problem. If, for example, it was "turtles all the way down", then one would still want to ask: "Why are there all those darn turtles?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 3:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 6:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 78 of 220 (674419)
09-28-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2012 10:12 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
My apologies for not responding earlier.
I see your point so please allow me to present a stronger case. I look at my two states and I see that they are sufficient to cover all possible beginning conditions for the population of a set. In this case, the set is the origin of the universe. I am looking for feedback and so I inquired if anyone had any other idea's because I didn't. Make no mistake though, I believe my logic is correct.
Your suggestion of two branes forming a universe can be logically included in either of my two conditions. For example, its possible they were each a "first thing" or that they were "something that was already here". The summation mechanic of the logic works very well and is very accommodating. This is another reason why I believe my logic captures all possible conditions for the population of a set and is useful for my purpose of describing the origin of the universe.
I'm really looking for other complementary logical conditions, not named theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2012 10:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2012 6:01 PM nano has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 220 (674420)
09-28-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by nano
09-28-2012 5:48 PM


I see your point so please allow me to present a stronger case. I look at my two states and I see that they are sufficient to cover all possible beginning conditions for the population of a set.
Wat? You say you're gonna present a stronger case and then you just re-word the same case. You think they're sufficient because you can't think of a third one.
Half-things combining into being something. This blurs the line between something and nothing. Maybe there's stuffs that's not really things yet.
Or, perhaps there was not a first thing, but multiple first things that popped into existence simultaneously.
Its not that hard to think of other options besides either a first thing or an eternal thing.
I am looking for feedback and so I inquired if anyone had any other idea's because I didn't.
Yeah, but you're feverishly trying to push any alternatives into you pre-conceieved idea in an effort to avoid accepting that its wrong.
I'm really looking for other complementary logical conditions, not named theories.
Okay, I've given you two more options now. You could respond to those.
This is another reason why I believe my logic captures all possible conditions for the population of a set and is useful for my purpose of describing the origin of the universe.
Yeah, about that. If time itself emerges as space does then the universe would have a finite past without having a beginning. So there, that's five options we've got now. So much for your only two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 5:48 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 80 of 220 (674422)
09-28-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
09-28-2012 2:23 PM


Percy writes:
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.
You are correct in that it doesn't change what I am saying. Quantum mechanics is weird, no? Or do you believe that without the universe's underlying structure of quantum mechanical law there would be acausal quantum effects? I might be wrong, but I don't think you believe that. Surely it is the universe's underlying structure of quantum mechanical law that governs quantum effects, both causal and acausal.
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?
Did you see my mea culpa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 09-28-2012 2:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 81 of 220 (674423)
09-28-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2012 4:33 PM


Re: But the question...
Well the topic says "A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained" not " Proposed Proof That The Origin of Everything Cannot Be Scientifically Explained".
But either way it is about as pointless and valueless as horseshit; likely of even less value.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2012 3:04 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 82 of 220 (674424)
09-28-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
09-28-2012 3:05 PM


Stile writes:
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?
I'm not trying to be flippant here, but its because my logic leads me there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 09-28-2012 3:05 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2012 3:07 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 83 of 220 (674427)
09-28-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by nano
09-28-2012 4:00 PM


nano writes:
Why? What requirement is there for this? My whole point is that it can't be explained.
So let's start again.
1. Consider the beginning of the universe.
2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".
3. By logical definition, a true "first thing" has no cause, since otherwise it would not be a first thing.
4. By logical definition, "something that has always been here" has no cause, since it has always been here.
5. The "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" encompass the entire set of logical possibilities for the origin of the universe.
6. The scientific method is based on cause and effect.
7. Since the "first thing" and the "something that has always been here" have no cause, they cannot be scientifically explained.
8. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained.
Several people, have pointed out that your argumant fails at the 2 step. Others have said it fails at 5 and 6 and so on.
My point is to say that in any case, this is not a puzzle that be can solved by classical logic because logic fails when it hits paradoxes and infinities.
But that does not mean that science can't answer it because science does not rely on logic and several scientists, whose opinion we are obliged to take some notice of, believe that the universe needn't have a first cause or have been around forever - it can have just caused itself from nothing.
Now, pretty much everyone would have an problem coming to terms with that, not least because the concept of nothing is not understandable in any normal useage. But also, because these same people tend to add that is possible because of a law which we must, it seems to most of us, pre-exist. Which of course makes no normal sense (hence logic can't help us yet again).
If you'd started off by saying - 'gosh this is a puzzle isn't it? No-one seems to have an answer because of infinite regress - we just have more complicated argument leading to the same ultimate paradox' Most people would agree that you had a point. More or less.
(They'd also say that it's not an original idea, but that doesn't usually put anybody off.)
Edited by Tangle, : The usual spelling issues

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 4:00 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 11:19 AM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 220 (674445)
09-29-2012 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
09-28-2012 6:21 PM


Re: But the question...
Well the topic says "A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained" not " Proposed Proof That The Origin of Everything Cannot Be Scientifically Explained".
But either way it is about as pointless and valueless as horseshit; likely of even less value.
Yeah, probably. But that's never stopped you before?
s "A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained" not " Proposed Proof That The Origin of Everything Cannot Be Scientifically Explained".
A God, or something, is the point to be thrown in there whereby the Universe is not Everything. I think its a jab against atheism and for agnoticism... but we agree that's it's a bad argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 6:21 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 85 of 220 (674446)
09-29-2012 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nano
09-28-2012 6:22 PM


Stile writes:
Science seems extremely adept at explaining and describing Quantum mechanical law... why do you think it's impossible, then?
I'm not trying to be flippant here, but its because my logic leads me there.
Logic doesn't lead to veracity, it leads to consistancy. You could still be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nano, posted 09-28-2012 6:22 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 86 of 220 (674450)
09-29-2012 5:29 AM


A couple quick points:
I've already admitted that logic isn't everything. It is merely something. Please see message 25.
In the very first post I say that "universe" and "multiverse" are interchangeable for my purposes. In other words, I am talking about "everything", however you define it.
EDIT: I've also pretty much admitted that my argument needs work. Though I maintain the logic for my end assertion is sound, I will certainly be reworking the whole argument.
I want to thank everyone for the feedback. This place is great! I'm glad I found it. Its nice to interact with people that care about the same things I do.
Oh, also, I'm not claiming my end point to be an original thought. My argument may be unique, but its born in isolation and the light of day in this forum is good for it. Dr A certainly seems to state the case better than I.
Edited by nano, : Added third point.
Edited by nano, : No reason given.
Edited by nano, : No reason given.

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


Message 87 of 220 (674451)
09-29-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2012 6:01 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Wat? You say you're gonna present a stronger case and then you just re-word the same case. You think they're sufficient because you can't think of a third one.
Sorry to disappoint. How about this?
  • Take a blank sheet of paper and draw a circle on it. Now begin to populate the circle with a single data point. Label it anything you want. Then put a second data point in the circle and label it anything you want.
  • Now, consider if there is any other way to populate the circle with data points.
The initial circle is an empty set, contains nothing and represents "the universe". The first data point is a "first thing" and by definition has no cause. The second data point is called "second" because of the first data point. It is contingent upon the "first thing". The only other way to obtain a populated set is to find it already populated.
I have previously addressed multiple first things in message 20.
The question of an early universe without time is an interesting one. Current scientific thought seems to say that quantum fluctuations caused time and the universe to arise and before this it is meaningless to inquire because the laws of causality breakdown. To me this is just a causal curtain to hide behind but I hear very little discussion about it. Its really the thing that brings me here. I really want to hear a discussion about it, if not by scientists then by smart people like are found here. To my way of thinking, there must be a first thing or something that has always been here. Even given a universe without time, there must be an explanation for its existence, though its possible it could be itself a "first thing". Or, I think it could also logically be described as "always being there", even if it was for zero seconds.
The work of Gabriele Veneziano around the Dilaton Field is very interesting, but I wish he would discuss what its ultimate implications are.
Edited by nano, : Added info about Gabriele Veneziano
Edited by nano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2012 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 09-29-2012 8:07 AM nano has replied
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 9:32 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 220 (674464)
09-29-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by nano
09-29-2012 6:59 AM


To me this is just a causal curtain to hide behind but I hear very little discussion about it.
There is nothing in it that's being hide behind, it's just a fact that at too small a scale 4D spacetime ceases to make sense/exist.
There a a few great discussions about it in the Big Bang and Cosmology threads.
I really want to hear a discussion about it, if not by scientists then by smart people like are found here.
Well you'll get both here, Cavediver and Son Goku are Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist respectively.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 11:23 AM onifre has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 220 (674475)
09-29-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by nano
09-29-2012 6:59 AM


Take a blank sheet of paper and draw a circle on it. Now begin to populate the circle with a single data point. Label it anything you want. Then put a second data point in the circle and label it anything you want.
Now, consider if there is any other way to populate the circle with data points.
The initial circle is an empty set, contains nothing and represents "the universe". The first data point is a "first thing" and by definition has no cause. The second data point is called "second" because of the first data point. It is contingent upon the "first thing". The only other way to obtain a populated set is to find it already populated.
The 'cause' of the first data point was your drawing it inside the circle. The reason for it being first was your election not to draw any other data points before it. The order is 'contingent' on you.
But let's pretend that your set description does not have this silliness about it. In that case your argument would be a mere analogy for causation regarding the origin of the universe. That is, the causation for applying the labels "first" and "second" is supposed to somehow apply to first causes in the creation of the universe. The next step would be to show us that your analogy reasonable extends to the subject of origins.

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 87 by nano, posted 09-29-2012 6:59 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 90 of 220 (674484)
09-29-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
09-28-2012 6:41 PM


Tangle writes:
My point is to say that in any case, this is not a puzzle that be can solved by classical logic...
Agreed. Your post makes sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 6:41 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024