A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

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.

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.

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.

Well, if the first thing didn't exist until the universe did,
and if the universe has a finite past
then the first thing has not always been there.

But this still doesn't leave room for an empty universe that just sits there without things in it.

Your proof fails to take this situation into account.

It is still possible that our universe can be explained.

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.

So it's both the first thing and the universe that you're claiming cannot be explained, not just only the first thing, so this statement is false:

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

In this case don't your and kbertsche's positions differ only in semantics?

Of course. And that is the problem.

Reference Message 50

quote:

---

... you are using a quantum-mechanics concept of "cause". This is very different than the philosophical concept of "cause" ...
... you are using the quantum mechanics concept of "nothing" which is very different from the philosophical concept of "nothing".

---

This indicated to me that kbertsche was saying nano had some different definitions for these concepts that would negate QFT, specifically a quantum fluctuation, as a possible first cause that had nothing before it yet could explain the existence of this universe.

If this was his intent then I was hoping he or nano would show me what the differences are between the QFT and these "philosophical" definitions of "cause" and "nothing". That would require some definitions that would preclude QFT, what philosophy was used to arrive at these definitions as well as why that choice of philosophy among the various others.

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.

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.

If the explanation is that the first cause had no prior cause is that not an explanation?

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.

You're assuming the "laws of physics" are some set of physical-like things that need to come into existence before QFT can operate. But the laws of physics are our mathematical models of the way we see the universe operate. At present we have no evident explanations of what preceded the universe so it is impossible to tell what processes there were or were not. But to explain this universe, as per your syllogism, all it would take is the operations of QFT or some QFT-like process.

It may be that the "first thing" was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

3. This first thing was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

a. Therefore it can be explained.

4. Therefore the universe can be explained.

We just don't presently know for sure if the explanation is correct.

Edited by AZPaul3, : finish

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No one has shown that a quantum fluctuation was not the origin of the universe.

HERE Stephan Hawking talks about the origin of the universe.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

quote:

---

....Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start.

---

Note that Dr. Hawking says "it may be possible." and "would start"
and this was back in 2005

Then in Sep 3 2010 in the following article he states this:
"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/...-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Then the predicted gravitational waves makes the news in 2014
http://www.pbs.org/...s/scientists-find-smoking-gun-big-bang

So there you have it. If you have the laws of physics you can get universes from nothing.
If you ask for a explanation on the origin of the laws of physics I will have to get back to you on that one.

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

There is no need if it didn't get there.

And its being can be explained if it could be no other way.

nano writes: 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.

Surely your proof relies on things not standing on their own. Is the existence of logic necessary?

Duplicate

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

Well no. That is the thing you are trying to prove. You don't get to assert what is essentially your conclusion as part of your defense that your conclusion is right. The problem I am asking you to deal with is that your conclusion leads to absurdities.

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.

One of the things you might well conclude is that if the result is that nothing can be explained, then perhaps your idea is of no worth whatsoever. If you are perfectly satisfied with any explanation of anything, perhaps that is an indication that your current line of thinking is flawed.

It struggles, however, in a situation which lacks a quantum field. It is true that in QFT there is no such thing as 'empty space', but that does not comment on 'emptiness' The state of their not being any space. Not-space is not covered in QFT.

It is sufficient that empty space is not the universe, but can exist in the absence of the universe. Whether or not that was the actual state of affairs or not is irrelevant. If it is at least conceivable that a field fluctuation could occur in the absence of a universe, then it is conceivable that we can state exactly how the universe arose from that state. Whether or not QFT or string theory, or any other known science covers that possibility is also irrelevant.

Go back to the argument between Dr Adequate and mentally replace 'necessary entities' with 'the quantum field' and 'nothing' as 'no quantum field', if you want to translate from specific claims, to more general ones.

I find the reasoning in those posts similarly flawed. Let's consider instead the possibility that the universe was created by an infinitely powerful being that exists outside of our universe. A description of that being using extra dimensional energy to create our own universe would be a complete explanation. You might then want to ask where that being came from, but that question is separate from the question of where those other dimensions and that other being came from.