Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
99 online now:
kjsimons, Phat, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,185 Year: 6,297/6,534 Month: 490/650 Week: 28/232 Day: 5/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 46 of 342 (784330)
05-16-2016 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


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.

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?


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 50 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2016 11:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 61 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 52 of 342 (784348)
05-17-2016 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by kbertsche
05-16-2016 11:36 PM


... 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".

I see nowhere in nano's syllogism where he/she chooses to define these terms as anything other than the concrete basic terms as science would use them rather than some wishy-washy philosophical treatment where the terms differ in meaning depending on the particular philosophy of the philosopher attempting the definition.

If we are attempting to "explain the universe", as per the OP, then we must use the definitions for "cause" and "nothing" in the way QFT defines them since QFT is one of our present best theories for explaining the operations of this universe; unless you're alluding to some other philosophically twisted definitions of the words "explain" and "universe".

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2016 11:36 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 2:44 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 65 of 342 (784375)
05-17-2016 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
05-17-2016 2:01 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 05-18-2016 1:00 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 69 of 342 (784384)
05-17-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nano
05-17-2016 4:23 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:23 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:51 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2016 1:44 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 93 of 342 (784432)
05-18-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nano
05-18-2016 7:51 AM


Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? Perhaps it was the first thing in the universe. As such, it has no cause and cannot be explained. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

A quantum fluctuation is not a "thing" but a process that happens on its own volition. It's not like you need a loaded quantum fluctuation ready to pop before it happens. I suppose, in a sense, one might argue a quantum fluctuation comes from the void, but, it's not like one was just sitting around waiting to go off.

The process, not the thing, could have produced the first thing in this universe and it could have done so from the void. In this way the first thing in our universe may very well have a cause and may very well be explainable.

I know, the next question is where did the process come from. Might as well ask where the void came from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:51 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 6:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 113 of 342 (784478)
05-18-2016 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 3:12 PM


Discussing the innate nature of nothing is like discussing the color of my unicorn.

There is lots to discuss about Invisible Pink: wave length, intensity. I can imagine different people would perceive these differently thus forming differences of opinion which could be heatedly discussed. Is that Invisible Barbie Pink or Invisible Brilliant Rose?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 129 of 342 (784498)
05-18-2016 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by nano
05-18-2016 6:42 PM


I am asking.

So take the ultimate step.

3. The void has no cause since it is nothing.

a. Therefore it cannot be explained.

4. Therefore anything that came out of it cannot be explained.

a. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

Tautology complete.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 6:42 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 138 of 342 (784507)
05-18-2016 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nano
05-18-2016 7:52 PM


I'm not ready to take the ultimate step, but I like your thinking.

Ah, me.

Just like Schrödinger's cat.

Erwin Schrödinger put forward his thought experiment as a rather tongue-in-cheek slap at Neil Bohr's interpretation of Schrödinger's wave function equations and Paul Dirac's treatment of Bohr's interpretation as superposed states. Next thing he knows his insult to the ideas became the defining example of those vary ideas.

So be it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:52 PM nano has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 341 of 342 (888524)
09-19-2021 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Phat
09-19-2021 2:56 PM


Re: What Does God Do?
But surely God has to do something.

He could die. He could not exist. Either of those would be good.

I can think of others if you need.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Phat, posted 09-19-2021 2:56 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022