Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
100 online now:
kjsimons, Phat, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 96 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
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 342 (784303)
05-16-2016 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nano
05-15-2016 6:35 AM


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.

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.


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 57 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 342 (784363)
05-17-2016 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nano
05-17-2016 2:30 PM


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

As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:30 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 342 (784373)
05-17-2016 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by nano
05-17-2016 2:58 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 2:58 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 342 (784374)
05-17-2016 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nano
05-17-2016 4:36 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.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:36 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 342 (784439)
05-18-2016 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nano
05-18-2016 7:39 AM


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

Or the first things are the universe at that point, but either way your "proof" doesn't account for these possibilities.

Your "proof" is limited to a universe that exists as a null set and then is populated with things. It doesn't account for other types of universes that aren't like that, like the ones I've brought up.

Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence that combine to form the first things that exist in the universe. It just pushes it back a step, but the first things that exist in the universe would have an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nano, posted 05-18-2016 7:39 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 342 (784453)
05-18-2016 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 11:22 AM


Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.

It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 342 (784461)
05-18-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 11:34 AM


Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?

Because in the "proof", things aren't existing until they are in the universe. So a brane that's there before the universe isn't a thing that exists. The proof fails to take that possibility into account.

Also, it isn't necessary that there must first be one thing that exists in the universe. It could've be multiple things, or even partial things. There could be intermediate stages to the emergence of the first things.

QFT was already brought up, I wouldn't call a quantum field a thing that exists inside the universe, its more like a part of the universe, itself.

The concept that the universe was a null set and then something started existing inside it, is only one concept of how the universe began. Even if the proof succeeds in proving that that universe couldn't be explained, it doesn't account for other ways in which the universe could have began.

Using terms like semi-things quasi-existing wasn't an attempt to form a concrete idea, but rather to open up the questioning of the universe having to be a null set that is then populated with just one thing.

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words.

I can live with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 11:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 342 (784464)
05-18-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2016 1:04 PM


No that's not what nano means.

What do they mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2016 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 342 (785601)
06-07-2016 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nano
06-07-2016 4:17 PM


The empty universe = the null set

There is nothing there, as in nothing exists. Literally, nothing.

Well, the set is there... it's just empty. Here is a quote box with nothing in it:

quote:

Here is a quote box containing the empty set:

quote:
{}

You see how there is something, rather than nothing, in that second quote?

Also, given that the universe is made up of all the things that are in it, then it cannot exist as a set that is null. There wouldn't even be a universe there.

And even if it did, the fact that the set is there means that there isn't literally nothing... because there is something: the set.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nano, posted 06-07-2016 4:17 PM nano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2016 10:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 06-07-2016 11:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 342 (785626)
06-08-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by NoNukes
06-07-2016 10:07 PM


The empty set is not nothing. It exists, has properties, and can have operations against it.

The OP erroneously views the universe as a container that can be empty. The universe is the things that exist, not a set that may or may not contain things.

If you want to analogize the universe as an empty set, then the universe itself is the first thing. There cannot be an empty universe in which the first thing then exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2016 10:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 06-08-2016 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 06-08-2016 5:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 342 (785627)
06-08-2016 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by ICANT
06-07-2016 11:58 PM


Cat writes:

You see how there is something, rather than nothing, in that second quote?

Why is the null set necessary to have something existing?

Because it is a thing, itself.

The quote box is there which means something exists, a quote box.

And the quote box is in a message, which is on a forum, which is on a website, which is on a server.... At some point we're going to have to draw a line and say that the medium in which we are communicating about somethings does not count as one of the things we are discussing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 06-07-2016 11:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2016 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 342 (785635)
06-08-2016 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by ringo
06-08-2016 12:07 PM


Or... the universe includes both the container and the contents. The container exists, even if there is nothing "in" it.

The container is the contents... without the contents there is no container.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 06-08-2016 12:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 06-08-2016 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 342 (785663)
06-08-2016 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
06-08-2016 12:44 PM


But you were presenting the quote box as the first thing just like nano's empty universe.

No, I wasn't.

The first quote box was to show one with nothing in it.

The second one was to show one with the empty set in it. That empty set would be the first thing that is in a quote box.

OP analogizes the universe as the empty set that then gets populated with things. That empty universe is called "nothing".

I was showing that even the empty set is something rather than nothing.

The point was that the first thing would be the universe itself rather than having an empty universe that then later contains the first thing.

Since the universe is made up of things, without things you cannot have a universe.

Existence is what is required for anything to exist, or begin to exist.

Existence is a property that things have, it does not exist independent of things. Existence cannot be a prerequisite for things anymore than things can be a prerequisite for existence. They're intertwined, one does not come before the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2016 12:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2016 8:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 255 of 342 (785665)
06-08-2016 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ringo
06-08-2016 12:29 PM


Can you have a chemical element with no atoms?

Can you have a society with no people?

Can you have a universe with no things?

I say no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 06-08-2016 12:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 06-09-2016 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 342 (785678)
06-08-2016 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by ICANT
06-08-2016 8:45 PM


So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.

If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing?

Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?

I dunno, he's not saying much more. In order to go from non-existence to things existing, you have to put non-existence inside some kind of container and then have an outside influence kick off the first things.

The problem with the OP is that our universe doesn't fit that model. At best, it's a proof that a particular universe isn't "explainable", it's just not describing this universe.

But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.

It would be an uncaused eternal entity.

Sort of, but it doesn't really matter if that universe contains things or not. And if you make, for that universe, time in the past direction finite then you escape the otherwise inevitable heat death.

But I reject the concept of an "empty universe". The universe is the sum of all things, not a container that may or may not have things in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2016 8:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2016 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye 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