|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Agreed. Your post makes sense to me.
My point is to say that in any case, this is not a puzzle that be can solved by classical logic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
onifre writes: There a a few great discussions about it in the Big Bang and Cosmology threads. ... Well you'll get both here, Cavediver and Son Goku are Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist respectively. Excellent. Looks like I have some reading to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I am thinking about how I could rework my argument and one question I have is this:
Is the following statement true:
Notice I am using the words "governs how" and not the word "cause" in this statement. I'm thinking that, while the underlying laws may govern how the effects occur, they do not cause them. However, this is a little confusing because if there were no quantum laws I don't see how there could be any quantum effects! We can't have ungoverned, rogue effects out there. So, can't it reasonably be said its the presence of the underlying structure of quantum law that "gives rise to" the effects, both causal and acausal? And isn't that the same as saying the quantum laws "cause" the effects, both causal and acausal? What do you think? Is there a conventionally accepted wisdom on this question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I think Ferdinand de Saussure just turned over in his grave.
Scientists talk to each other. They write whole books without any heavy math in them. I want to know what they say on this subject. Would they characterize the universe's underlying structure of quantum law as "governing" causal and acausal quantum effects or do they characterize it as "causing" causal and acausal quantum effects. Or is it characterized another way by scientists? Its interesting because the question arises "Are acausal quantum effects truly acausal if they can be explained by quantum law?" Or do we have truly "rogue actors" loose in the universe that are governed by no physical laws? Its also interesting because I think just about everyone here agrees that quantum fluctuations are responsible for the origin of the universe. In the background, sat the universe's underlying structure of quantum law and as has already been said in message 19:
Son Goku writes: 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. So, ultimately, did the laws "cause" the universe? Could they be considered a "first thing"? Or should I just leave it at the presence of the laws can't be explained at this time? Its all very confusing and I need some help sorting it all out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
How about acausal effects? Are they truly acausal if they are governed or described by underlying physical laws? Any feedback on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
That helps. Thank you. Thanks to NoNukes as well.
So, the quantum laws describe boundaries for quantum effects, both causal and acausal, but nothing controls or governs where those effects play-out within the boundaries. Do I have that right? This is really the heart of quantum mechanics, isn't it? I mean, within certain boundaries you have truly unknowable (to some degree) forces/effects and it is impossible to know or predict where they will show up. Ultimately, doesn't this say that Materialism (the belief that everything can be described by matter, its interactions and the underlying physical laws of the universe) is wrong? For example, I used to think that all thought in one's mind was simple chemical interaction, but knowing that quantum effects are truly unpredictable and acausal means I can't say that. It seems to me, at the end of the day, we are left with a very real limit on how much we can know about everything since important processes in the universe are acausal and therefore unpredictable/unknowable, perhaps even, dare I say, unexplainable to some degree. Am I drawing reasonable conclusions here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Son Goku writes: ...good stuff... Very, very good stuff. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 1323 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Tangle writes: Even those people that think they understand the concepts say that they make no normal sense. That's where the fun comes in. I'm having a blast talking about this stuff. I hope you can to.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024