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

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. 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.

Why? What requirement is there for this? My whole point is that it can't be explained. 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. A true first thing would by definition have no 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. 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!

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.

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. Did you see my mea culpa?

I'm not trying to be flippant here, but its because my logic leads me there.

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.

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 VenezianoEdited by nano, : No reason given.

Agreed. Your post makes sense to me.

Excellent. Looks like I have some reading to do.

I am thinking about how I could rework my argument and one question I have is this:Is the following statement true:

• The underlying structure of quantum mechanical law in the universe governs how all quantum effects, both causal and acausal, take place.

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?

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: 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.

How about acausal effects? Are they truly acausal if they are governed or described by underlying physical laws? Any feedback on this?

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?

Very, very good stuff. Thank you.

That's where the fun comes in. I'm having a blast talking about this stuff. I hope you can to.