Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
 707 online now: kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 704 visitors) Newest Member: Contrarian Post Volume: Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Is It Science?

# A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 16 of 342 (784270) 05-15-2016 7:15 PM Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous05-15-2016 1:48 PM

 Here is the proof FOR necessary entitiesImagine a world where there are only contingent entities. Since all entities are explained in terms of other entities, this implies either an infinite regression or a circularity of causation. Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary. A necessary entity contradicts the statement there are only contingent entities. Therefore there cannot be contingent only entities

Imagine a world were there were no entities. Then there would not be any contingent entities, so there would be no need of necessary entities to explain them.

 Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary.

Not if you could have either: but in any case their necessity is in fact contingent. What you're doing is along the lines of: "Here is a contingent triangle. A triangle necessarily has three sides. Therefore its sides are necessary objects." Well, not if the triangle is contingent: in that case it could have not existed and the sides along with it.

 This message is a reply to: Message 13 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 20 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 17 of 342 (784271) 05-15-2016 7:33 PM Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous05-15-2016 1:39 PM

 Sure, you said the word 'state'. State of what?Can you prove it is possible for a 'state' of 'no entities' to 'exist'?

Again, I thought I'd done this.

To show that necessarily something exists would be to demonstrate that there is a contradiction that can be derived from the statement "there are no things that exist". (Otherwise it would not be necessarily false.) But how can there be a contradiction where there are no objects to form propositions about? There can't, can there? For a contradiction would involve asserting and denying that the existence of an object having a given predicate, the existence of two objects standing in a given relation, etc. But if you think you can frame such a proposition, have at it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 1:39 PM Modulous has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 18 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 7:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 3:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 18 of 342 (784272) 05-15-2016 7:49 PM Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate05-15-2016 7:33 PM

 To show that necessarily something exists would be to demonstrate that there is a contradiction that can be derived from the statement "there are no things that exist". But how can there be a contradiction where there are no objects to form propositions about?

I don't know enough about the nature of reality or the nature of existence to tell you if a contradiction exists between these concepts and the concept of 'no thing existing'. But I don't need to since I'm only proposing that this needs to be established before the proof in the OP gets off the ground.

To give a completely off the wall example. Let us say that the nature of reality is 'entropy increases' then entropy is necessarily existent and the idea of 'no thing existing' goes wildly against the nature of reality.

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 8:00 PM Modulous has replied

Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 19 of 342 (784273) 05-15-2016 8:00 PM Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous05-15-2016 7:49 PM

 I don't know enough about the nature of reality or the nature of existence to tell you if a contradiction exists between these concepts and the concept of 'no thing existing'. But I don't need to since I'm only proposing that this needs to be established before the proof in the OP gets off the ground.

Well, I seem to have established it. Unless you have a rebuttal to my argument.

 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 7:49 PM Modulous has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 21 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 8:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 20 of 342 (784274) 05-15-2016 8:10 PM Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate05-15-2016 7:15 PM

 Imagine a world were there were no entities. Then there would not be any contingent entities, so there would be no need of necessary entities to explain them.

Well that proves how things are in an imaginary world.

In this world however, there are some contingent entities. Either all entities are contingent, or only some are.

 but in any case their necessity is in fact contingent.

I'm pretty sure all necessity is contingent. In this case it is on the nature of reality. Our reality. The nature of what is real, how something can exist. Does reality allow for there to be 'no things'? We know for sure it allows for 'some things', and argument could be made that rules out 'all things' as a possibility.

I said earlier that perhaps spacetime is defined by the existence of relationships between entities; if there is no spacetime type construct then we're talking about a place and time that necessarily don't exist in reality. Or maybe we're necessarily not talking about a place and time time that exists in reality. Well maybe, anyway. If spacetime is required for there to be a reality to consider and if spacetime is defined by the relationship between entities then we're in a situation where there must be entities in any reality that is possible.

Again, off the wall ideas maybe.

It is possible to say 'imagine a universe/world/reality with no entities' but are we actually imagining a universe at all? Is this just logic and grammar playing itself out or does it relate to reality in some fashion?

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 12:35 AM Modulous has seen this message

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 21 of 342 (784275) 05-15-2016 8:14 PM Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate05-15-2016 8:00 PM

 Well, I seem to have established it. Unless you have a rebuttal to my argument.

Yes. You have failed to provide confirmation that it is possible for no entities to exist according to the reality we are in.

 This message is a reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 8:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 12:33 AM Modulous has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1376 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 (1)
 Message 22 of 342 (784277) 05-15-2016 10:02 PM

And next...
...we will take a whack at unscrewing the inscrutable.

Film at 11.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3

 Message 23 of 342 (784278) 05-15-2016 10:42 PM Reply to: Message 14 by nano05-15-2016 6:18 PM

Re: Is there any point to your assertion?
But you are assuming that the explanation must be logical and that the first cause had to be caused? Other than your unsupported assertions is there any evidence the first cause had to be caused?

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 14 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:18 PM nano has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 40 by nano, posted 05-16-2016 5:10 PM jar has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 24 of 342 (784280) 05-15-2016 11:56 PM Reply to: Message 15 by nano05-15-2016 6:37 PM

 Logically, the first thing can have no explanation. Since its the first thing there is nothing else to explain it. 2nd things and beyond can certainly be explained by the things that came before.

If in fact, a second and third thing can be explained, then it is possible that the universe is a third, or even a 100th thing following a first unexplained cause. By your current admission, we would have to regard a tracing of the universe to at least one (or possibly more) describable precursor(s) as an explanation.

If such explanations are instead disallowed, then we can extend your original argument to say that nothing we observe can be explained, because all things we know rely on the universe first to have existed.

I believe that the only way to escape the conundrum expressed above is that the original concept, namely that we can only have an explanation if that explanation is ultimate must be rejected because that is not the sense in which we use the term explanation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:37 PM nano has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM NoNukes has replied

Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 25 of 342 (784284) 05-16-2016 12:33 AM Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous05-15-2016 8:14 PM

 Yes. You have failed to provide confirmation that it is possible for no entities to exist according to the reality we are in.

Well of course entities exist in the reality that we are in. But I have demonstrated that they do not exist as a matter of logical necessity.

 This message is a reply to: Message 21 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 8:14 PM Modulous has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 33 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2016 1:37 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 26 of 342 (784285) 05-16-2016 12:35 AM Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous05-15-2016 8:10 PM

 Well that proves how things are in an imaginary world.

And to prove that the opposite was necessary, you would have to show that things couldn't be like that in an imaginary world.

 This message is a reply to: Message 20 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 8:10 PM Modulous has seen this message

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

 Message 27 of 342 (784292) 05-16-2016 3:36 AM Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate05-15-2016 7:33 PM

 Dr Adequate writes:To show that necessarily something exists would be to demonstrate that there is a contradiction that can be derived from the statement "there are no things that exist". (Otherwise it would not be necessarily false.) But how can there be a contradiction where there are no objects to form propositions about? There can't, can there? For a contradiction would involve asserting and denying that the existence of an object having a given predicate, the existence of two objects standing in a given relation, etc. But if you think you can frame such a proposition, have at it.

The statement necessarily contradicts itself. There are no things that exist, therefore there are no statements that exist.

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2016 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 8:25 AM bluegenes has replied

frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010

 Message 28 of 342 (784294) 05-16-2016 7:05 AM Reply to: Message 1 by nano05-15-2016 6:35 AM

0=X-Y+d+g-i.....

Given that it seems to be that if you add up all the energy in the universe it adds up to 0. It seems that everything there is is just nothing expressed differently.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out﻿ of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has taken no action

Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 29 of 342 (784297) 05-16-2016 8:25 AM Reply to: Message 27 by bluegenes05-16-2016 3:36 AM

 The statement necessarily contradicts itself. There are no things that exist, therefore there are no statements that exist.

Huh?

 This message is a reply to: Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 3:36 AM bluegenes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 10:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 30 of 342 (784303) 05-16-2016 10:33 AM Reply to: Message 1 by nano05-15-2016 6:35 AM

 1. Consider an empty universe.a. There is nothing to cause anything to happen.2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.It doesn't matter what it is.3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.a. Therefore it cannot be explained.4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

Well, I suppose that universe could not be explained. Where were you planning on going from there?

But I don't see that having anything to do with our universe, where it did not exist in an empty state before there were things in it.

The universe is the things, so without them we don't have our universe.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1 by nano, posted 05-15-2016 6:35 AM nano has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 57 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)