|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total) |
| dwise1 (1 member, 64 visitors)
|
Contrarian | |
Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 16112 Joined: |
As I understand nano, by "the universe" he means absolutely everything, including Brahma, turtles, and so forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 325 days) Posts: 16112 Joined: |
I think talking of logic as "existing" is extremely tendentious; unless one means as a concept or a subject of study, in which case its existence is not at all necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1751 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I was asking the O.P. if he thought it necessary. I personally think it requires a somethingness reality, and therefore doesn't qualify as an uncaused first cause. Statements and their makers are things, which is why the one you used further up the thread is inherently false because it can only exist in a world where it's false. A bit like "Statements are never made". In using logic in discussing the O.P., we may all be unwittingly treating the existence of some things as necessary. BTW, we can't strictly prove a claim like "unicorns exist nowhere", but "nothingness exists nowhere" is necessarily true, assuming that our type of reality is a necessary thing, and therefore a place is necessarily something. Edited by bluegenes, : tpyo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17171 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Logic applies to the statements we make. Whether it "exists" in any particular situation seems a pointless and trivial question. The question is whether it applies to the statements we make about that situation - and I do not see a good reason why it would not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
A=B
The first thing is the universe at that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
No, it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
More accurately I assume the laws are hard-codes into the underlying fabric of the universe.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
Yes, exactly my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
It still remains that first things cannot be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33957 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But that is not what he asked, and if the answer to any of those is simply that it has no cause then that is the explanation.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nano Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 110 Joined: |
I accept and have stated that 2nd and greater things can be explained by the things that came before. My specific assertion is that the origin of the universe cannot be explained. I could have been more clear about that in my proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33957 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Why is it not an explanation?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022