Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
105 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,050 Year: 6,162/6,534 Month: 355/650 Week: 125/278 Day: 23/24 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 1 of 342 (784251)
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


This is a followup to a previous discussion: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

For your consideration and comment I propose the following simple thought and logic experiment. FYI - for my purposes the term universe = multiverse = all of existence.

A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot be Explained

1. Consider an empty universe.
a. There is nothing to cause anything to happen.

2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.

  1. It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.
  2. 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.

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

6. Ultimate Corollary - Given that the universe itself cannot be explained, then nothing in the universe can be ultimately explained. (This corollary was added to the original proof on 5/21/16 by nano with admin permission. See Message 166)

Thank you for your attention, your consideration and your comments.

**************************************************
Added on 10/23/16:

End of Discussion Proof Reformulation

Taking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist:

- It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain

- Or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain

- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained

Where: Universe = Multiverse = All of Existence

Edited by Admin, : Make text of link to thread be the title, and minor cleanup.

Edited by Admin, : More cleanup.

Edited by nano, : Added #6 to the proof with Percy's permission

Edited by nano, : changed "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence"

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-15-2016 9:06 AM nano has replied
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2016 10:11 AM nano has not replied
 Message 28 by frako, posted 05-16-2016 7:05 AM nano has not replied
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2016 10:33 AM nano has replied
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2016 10:06 PM nano has replied
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 3:26 PM nano has replied
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 05-19-2016 12:36 PM nano has seen this message but not replied
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 06-09-2016 5:29 PM nano has not replied
 Message 294 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2016 7:53 AM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 14 of 342 (784267)
05-15-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
05-15-2016 9:03 AM


Re: Is there any point to your assertion?
"Is there a point to your assertion?"

My point is simply that how the universe began cannot be logically explained. I believe this proof proves it. Some may be interested in this proof and some may not. I offer it as it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 9:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 10:42 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 15 of 342 (784268)
05-15-2016 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
05-15-2016 9:06 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 05-15-2016 9:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2016 11:56 PM nano has replied
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-22-2016 6:38 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 40 of 342 (784320)
05-16-2016 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
05-15-2016 10:42 PM


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?

Logically there can be no explanation because there is no first cause. There is only a first thing and it is uncaused. That is the point of the proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 10:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:17 PM nano has replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 8:08 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 54 of 342 (784360)
05-17-2016 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
05-15-2016 11:56 PM


NoNukes writes:

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.


As the proof shows only the first thing in the universe cannot be explained.

NoNukes writes:

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.


Your stement suggests an interesting second corollary to my proof. Namely, that ultimately nothing can be explained because at the root of it the universe cannot be explained. I will have to think about this.

NoNukes writes:

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.


No conundrum exists. As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2016 11:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 2:47 PM nano has replied
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 3:32 PM nano has replied
 Message 73 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:20 PM nano has not replied
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:23 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 57 of 342 (784364)
05-17-2016 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
05-16-2016 10:33 AM


Cat Sci writes:

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.

As the corollary to my proof shows, a universe where the first thing always existed cannot be explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2016 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:39 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 60 of 342 (784369)
05-17-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
05-16-2016 5:17 PM


Percy writes:

But the lack of a cause doesn't imply a lack of an explanation.


As the proof shows, when you consider the first thing in the universe being without cause then the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 8:44 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 61 of 342 (784370)
05-17-2016 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
05-16-2016 10:06 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

Except Quantum Field Theory can explain how something can come into existence without a cause where before there was nothing. Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?


No, because if Quantum Field Theory was the first thing in the universe you can't explain how it got there.

As a hypothetical example I offer the following: Suppose the laws of physics was the first thing in the universe. Their existence can't be explained, but QFT would be a second or greater thing able to be explained by the existence of the laws of physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2016 10:06 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM nano has replied
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 5:51 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 62 of 342 (784372)
05-17-2016 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 2:47 PM


Cat Sci writes:

Is it only the first thing or also the universe itself?


From the proof:

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:42 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 66 of 342 (784377)
05-17-2016 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by 1.61803
05-17-2016 3:26 PM


1.61803 writes:

Are you suggesting it will never be explained because there is no explanation?
Or that there may be a explanation but science will never find it.


I believe the proof shows that no logical explanation can be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 3:26 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM nano has replied
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 5:31 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 67 of 342 (784381)
05-17-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 3:32 PM


bluegenes writes:

If the logic used in your proof is necessarily correct, and doesn't require a causal explanation, then that would leave you without a proof. If it isn't necessarily correct, then that leaves you without a proof.


I maintain the simple logic of my proof stands on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 3:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 10:10 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 81 of 342 (784416)
05-18-2016 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by kbertsche
05-18-2016 1:00 AM


kbertsche writes:

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?

His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Yes, you read me correctly. I was trying to keep the proof simple. I like to think of it as the null set.

Edited by nano, : added comment about the null set


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 05-18-2016 1:00 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 82 of 342 (784417)
05-18-2016 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 4:39 PM


It can't be explained because the first thing cannot be explained. Being the first thing it has no cause and therefore no explanation. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 83 of 342 (784418)
05-18-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2016 4:42 PM


A=B
The first thing is the universe at that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2016 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:00 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 606 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 84 of 342 (784419)
05-18-2016 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
05-17-2016 5:01 PM


No, it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 05-17-2016 5:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:26 AM nano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022