Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9079 total)
113 online now:
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,332 Year: 6,444/6,534 Month: 637/650 Week: 175/232 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 342 (784329)
05-16-2016 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
05-16-2016 8:08 PM


But there can be an explanation; for example "The first cause has no prior cause." would be an explanation.

That wouldn't be an explanation, just an observation.

"It is turtles all the way down." is an explanation.

How do you explain all the turtles?

"Brahma slept and dreamed." is an explanation.

Why is there Brahma?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 8:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 10:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 342 (784332)
05-16-2016 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
05-16-2016 10:11 PM


All great questions but irrelevant to the topic of the OP.

No, that's very much his point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 10:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 11:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 342 (784400)
05-17-2016 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
05-16-2016 11:05 PM


How so? Is the topic not " A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained"? If the universe is explained then would those not be other questions?

As I understand nano, by "the universe" he means absolutely everything, including Brahma, turtles, and so forth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 11:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 342 (784401)
05-17-2016 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 10:10 PM


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

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 10:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 4:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 342 (784446)
05-18-2016 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
05-18-2016 8:25 AM


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.

But "it just did" is not an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:25 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 342 (784447)
05-18-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
05-18-2016 8:44 AM


Since we have explanations for other uncaused things, like radioactivity and the Casimir effect, why not for the origin of the universe?

Well, in this context calling those things "uncaused" is at worst tendentious and at best misses the point.

When (for example) a radioactive atom decays, there may be no reason why it did so at that point rather than some other, but there are reasons why it did so: there is the atom and its nature.

This would not do for the origin of everything: if you had something that had a tendency to turn into everything, then you'd already have a thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 8:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 342 (784449)
05-18-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 10:00 AM


Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence ...

That's only a case that we need to consider if the concepts of "half-thing" and "quasi-existence" mean anything. When you think of a universe like that, what are you thinking of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 342 (784455)
05-18-2016 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 11:29 AM


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

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

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

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words. Can you picture an intermediate stage? I cannot. What would a half-existent banana look like? What would there be about it that would make us call it a half-existing banana rather than a completely existing ... uh ... ana?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 342 (784462)
05-18-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 12:27 PM


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.

No that's not what nano means.

I can live with that.

People can usually live with the defects of their own reasoning, but they often find it difficult to convince others.

Words need to have referents. If you were to try to overturn (let us say) a theorem in Euclid by saying "But what if the triangle was a four-sided triangle", then your argument would not be persuasive because the phrase "four-sided triangle" does not mean anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 342 (784463)
05-18-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
05-18-2016 12:06 PM


But if "it just exists" is true then yes it is an explanation.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 12:06 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 106 of 342 (784466)
05-18-2016 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2016 1:26 PM


What do they mean?

Well, he would count the brane as being a thing that exists and so part of the universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2016 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 108 of 342 (784470)
05-18-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
05-18-2016 2:45 PM


Perhaps it's the nature of nothing to turn into something.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-18-2016 2:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 342 (784475)
05-18-2016 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Modulous
05-18-2016 3:50 PM


It is explained: it can be no other way.

Which we prove how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 3:50 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 4:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 120 of 342 (784485)
05-18-2016 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Modulous
05-18-2016 4:28 PM


I don't think one needs to prove an explanation. It just needs to explain. If it can be no other way that would explain the universe, would it not?

I was kinda looking for an explanation with a justification. I will concede that anything can be explained badly.

Can you prove it could be some other way?

Well, the alternative seems to be logically consistent.

If there is nothing, there is no possibility of there being something. Since we know there is a possibility of there being something *points around at some things* there is no possibility of there being nothing.

"If this is square, there is no possibility of it being triangular. Since we know that there is a possibility of it being triangular *counts its sides, of which there are three* there is no possibility of it being square."

Well, if that is advanced just to prove that a thing can't be triangular and square at once, then it is innocuous but inconsequential. But if it is meant to prove that the thing is necessarily not square, then it could use a little work. For of course that could have been an unrealized possibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 4:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 342 (784487)
05-18-2016 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by NoNukes
05-18-2016 6:09 PM


If that leaves anything to salvage from the OP, it is clear then that the OP defines 'explanation' as something that uniquely applies to the universe in a way that it would never apply to anything else.

No, it's just in the nature of the question being asked that when an explanation is being sought for everything, any proposed secondary cause is among the things being explained.

After all, a secondary cause is only acceptable as an explanation when it is in fact a cause of the thing being explained. If we ask "Why did Fred murder John?", then "Because the bullet penetrated John's heart" is not an answer, because that comes further down the causal chain. It would be no good protesting that secondary causes should be good enough as an explanation. That particular secondary cause is an explanation for something, but not for the thing you're being asked to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 6:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 7:32 PM Dr Adequate 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