A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

What do they mean?

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

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

I don't think it's either.

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.

The spawning of universes may be the nature of reality.

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.

Perhaps it's the nature of nothing to turn into something. That's what the Casimir effect tells us about empty space. And the expansion of space tells us that there's something ("dark energy") that makes more space-time out of nothing.

There are inherent terminological and conceptual problems in discussing the origin of the universe. We don't know what came before the universe. Was there really nothing, or was there something but we know nothing about it yet? If there was something before the universe, does that automatically push Nano's question back to what caused the something? And what does "before" mean anyway before time existed?

--Percy

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.

It is sufficient that empty space is not the universe, but can exist in the absence of the universe. Whether or not that was the actual state of affairs or not is irrelevant. If it is at least conceivable that a field fluctuation could occur in the absence of a universe, then it is conceivable that we can state exactly how the universe arose from that state. Whether or not QFT or string theory, or any other known science covers that possibility is also irrelevant.

And the idea falls down in cases where it is not conceivable.

Let's consider instead the possibility that the universe was created by an infinitely powerful being that exists outside of our universe. A description of that being using extra dimensional energy to create our own universe would be a complete explanation.

Per the rules of the OP, which includes 'multiverses', things outside of our universe is something that requires an explanation. We're including EVERYTHING, nothing exists (ahem, sorry everyone) outside of the scope. Further, the argument can basically boil down to 'if there is at least one necessary entity everything can be explained' which is the same argument being made by other people that you are identifying as 'flawed'.

It still remains that first things cannot be explained.

It is explained: it can be no other way.

It is explained: it can be no other way.

Which we prove how?

Which we prove how?

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?

Can you prove it could be some other way?

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. There must be some thing(s) that necessarily exists in order for the statement 'it is possible that something exists' to be true. Since it is true, QED.

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.

NoNukes writes: The problem I am asking you to deal with is that your conclusion leads to absurdities.

I don't think its absurd when simple logic leads one to the conclusion that the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

NoNukes writes: One of the things you might well conclude is that if the result is that nothing can be explained, then perhaps your idea is of no worth whatsoever.

I will leave that judgement to others. I am satisfied with the simple and direct nature of my proof.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Edited by nano, : No reason given.

My specific assertion is that the origin of the universe cannot be explained. I could have been more clear about that in my proof.

I understand that. The problem is that an assertion is not a proof. Your assertion needs to be backed up.

Because it doesn't explain anything. Therefore it cannot logically be called an explanation.

I don't think its absurd when simple logic leads one to the conclusion that the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

I disagree of course. And your reasoning in this statement is completely circular. You are supposed to be proving your conclusion and not admiring your conclusion.

If a corollary of your explanation leads to the conclusion that nothing is ever explained, but you then accept explanations for things other than the universe, you've actually disproven your own hypothesis using a classic reductio ad absurdum technique.

NoNukes writes: I understand that. The problem is that an assertion is not a proof. Your assertion needs to be backed up.

As my proof shows, its simple and straight-forward logic. The first thing in the universe cannot be explained because there is nothing to explain it. Unless you say that the first thing caused itself. That too cannot be explained. Therefore the universe cannot be explained. The logic is evident by definition alone. Its evident as is.

Per the rules of the OP, which includes 'multiverses', things outside of our universe is something that requires an explanation.

That's fine. I acknowledge that we do not have an explanation of those external dimensions and entities. But I submit that I have still pointed out an error/inconsistency in the OP.

If in fact, we cannot base any explanation on a previous unexplained event or entity, then there can be no such thing as an explanation for anything. An explanation of how I pocketed the nine ball relies on the existence of the pool table, the solar system, and the universe. If we are going to allow that state of affairs then we have equivocated the meaning of the term explanation into something foreign and in my mind useless.

We might save those other explanations by assuming the precursors are all understood despite not being mentioned and that the original question is, "Given the state of the universe including all physical laws and the current state of the pool table, how did the nine ball go into the pocket". But then we should ask why can we not make the same assumptions regarding unstated precursors in an explanation of the universe. If the answer is in fact, "because the OP requires all precursors to be provided an explained", then the OP boils down to saying that if there is no known ultimate cause then we cannot deliver an explanation that includes the ultimate cause. In short the OP is an valueless tautology of exactly zero import scientifically or philosophically. We cannot explain what we cannot explain.

In a later post, the original poster indicates that explanations of things resulting from a second cause are in fact acceptable. 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.

In short 'explanation' either has a meaningless meaning, or some particular special meaning that applies only to the universe for the purposes of this particular thread. Fine. I'm satisfied to allow that kind of walling off from reality.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.