Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
116 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 113 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,057 Year: 6,169/6,534 Month: 362/650 Week: 132/278 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 50 of 342 (784336)
05-16-2016 11:36 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


When you say this, you are using a quantum-mechanics concept of "cause". This is very different than the philosophical concept of "cause", which I believe is what nano is using.

AZPaul3 writes:


where before there was nothing.


But again, you are using the quantum mechanics concept of "nothing" which is very different from the philosophical concept of "nothing".

AZPaul3 writes:


Doesn't this negate points 3, 3.a and 4?


No, because of the above.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


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 52 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 9:04 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 78 of 342 (784409)
05-18-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 4:45 PM


AZPaul3 writes:


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.

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.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:29 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 145 of 342 (784518)
05-18-2016 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 10:15 PM


Dr A writes:


NoNukes writes:


I agree. But asking 'explain the universe' may not be synonymous with asking for 'the cause of everything'. That position would seem to be trivially easy to demonstrate if you are willing to concede that there might be things either external to or prior to the existence of the universe. Apparently the OP does concede exactly that.


That's not what I got from the OP.

Me either. Further, I explained what I thought nano meant in the OP, and he confirmed it.

Nano is using "universe" to mean "anything and everything that exists". If anything at all exists (space-time, QFT, governing equations), this is part of the universe and the universe exists. Nano's "nothing" or "null set" is ABSOLUTELY nothing (in a philosophical sense); no space-time, no QFT, no branes, no quantum vacuum, no governing equations. His challenge is to explain how/why any of these began to exist.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dogmafood, posted 05-18-2016 10:59 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 11:02 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 152 of 342 (784542)
05-19-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dogmafood
05-18-2016 10:59 PM


ProtoTypical writes:


kbertsche writes:


His challenge is to explain how/why any of these began to exist.


He assumes that they had a beginning. Things that have always been do not require an initial cause.

But nano addressed this possibility in the OP as well:
quote:
Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

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


P.S. I should have reworded my statement above to be more consistent with nano. Instead of "His challenge is to explain how/why any of these began to exist" I should have said, "His challenge is to provide a causal explanation for the first thing to exist in the universe."


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dogmafood, posted 05-18-2016 10:59 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 3:10 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1446 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 160 of 342 (784569)
05-19-2016 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
05-19-2016 3:10 PM


NoNukes writes:

Because apparently the word universe means everything including things that might be causes of the universe. So the challenge is to find a causal explanation for the first thing to exist even if that first thing is not typically considered part of the universe or even the multiverse.


Exactly. Nano has been clear that by "universe" he includes anything and everything that exists. His challenge is to provide a causal explanation for the first thing that existed.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 3:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 11:16 PM kbertsche 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