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
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 85 of 342 (784420)
05-18-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 5:17 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

You're assuming the "laws of physics" are some set of physical-like things that need to come into existence before QFT can operate. But the laws of physics are our mathematical models of the way we see the universe operate.


More accurately I assume the laws are hard-codes into the underlying fabric of the universe.

AZPaul3 writes:

At present we have no evident explanations of what preceded the universe so it is impossible to tell what processes there were or were not. But to explain this universe, as per your syllogism, all it would take is the operations of QFT or some QFT-like process.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 8:53 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 86 of 342 (784422)
05-18-2016 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 1.61803
05-17-2016 5:31 PM


1.61803 writes:

If you ask for a explanation on the origin of the laws of physics I will have to get back to you on that one.


Yes, exactly my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 05-17-2016 5:31 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by 1.61803, posted 05-19-2016 12:24 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 87 of 342 (784423)
05-18-2016 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
05-17-2016 5:51 PM


Modulus writes:

There is no need if it didn't get there.

And its being can be explained if it could be no other way.


It still remains that first things cannot be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 5:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 05-18-2016 3:50 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 89 of 342 (784426)
05-18-2016 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
05-17-2016 2:01 PM


NoNukes writes:

It appears to me that the OP is inherently defining explanation to mean 'describe how something results from its ultimate cause.'


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 2:01 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 5:49 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 92 of 342 (784431)
05-18-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
05-17-2016 10:10 PM


bluegenes writes:

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


I just meant that it is simple and logical.

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 95 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 10:20 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 114 of 342 (784479)
05-18-2016 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
05-17-2016 10:23 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2016 10:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 5:55 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 116 of 342 (784481)
05-18-2016 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
05-18-2016 8:26 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 05-18-2016 8:26 AM jar has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 118 of 342 (784483)
05-18-2016 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
05-18-2016 5:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 5:49 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 122 of 342 (784488)
05-18-2016 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
05-18-2016 8:44 AM


Percy writes:

But you don't have a proof. You have a leap of illogic lacking justification and opposed by real-world examples.


Saying my proof is illogical doesn't make it so. And I use a real-world example at the heart of it. Its simple straight-forward logic.

percy writes:

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

It would be nice to move the discussion forward, but repetitions of original assertions do not merit new arguments.

Surely radioactivity and the Casimir effect can be explained by the laws of physics. That makes radioactivity and the Casimir effect 2nd or greater things and can be explained by the things that came before. It's the laws of physics as a first thing that cannot be explained (in this example).

I to would like to move this discussion forward but we seem to be speaking different languages with all the concern over what certain words mean.

I will try to move it forward by quoting Son Goku from the original thread almost 3 years ago now. Here it is: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16623&mpp=1...

Son Goku writes:

So you can have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe from nothing, it's the presence of the laws you can't explain.


This is exactly what I am on about. Here, the laws are the first thing. They can't be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

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 151 by Percy, posted 05-19-2016 10:29 AM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 123 of 342 (784489)
05-18-2016 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by AZPaul3
05-18-2016 8:53 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

A quantum fluctuation is not a "thing" but a process that happens on its own volition. It's not like you need a loaded quantum fluctuation ready to pop before it happens. I suppose, in a sense, one might argue a quantum fluctuation comes from the void, but, it's not like one was just sitting around waiting to go off.

The process, not the thing, could have produced the first thing in this universe and it could have done so from the void. In this way the first thing in our universe may very well have a cause and may very well be explainable.

I know, the next question is where did the process come from. Might as well ask where the void came from.

I am asking. And quantum fluctuations adhere to the laws of physics, yes? That puts the laws as the first thing in this example. Its the origin of the laws that can't be explained and thus the origin of the universe cannot be explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 8:53 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 7:30 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 124 of 342 (784490)
05-18-2016 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by bluegenes
05-18-2016 10:20 AM


bluegenes writes:

Doesn't your O.P. assume reality as a necessary first thing without intending to?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. My proof is simple and straight forward. It should be understood that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 10:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 7:33 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 133 of 342 (784502)
05-18-2016 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
05-18-2016 5:55 PM


NoNukes writes:

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.

You seem very fixed on this "ultimate" corollary. Technically, you are the one that proposed it. It is not part of my proof. I merely said you had an interesting point and I would think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 5:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 05-18-2016 8:07 PM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 134 of 342 (784503)
05-18-2016 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AZPaul3
05-18-2016 7:30 PM


I'm not ready to take the ultimate step, but I like your thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 7:30 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2016 8:16 PM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 135 of 342 (784504)
05-18-2016 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by bluegenes
05-18-2016 7:33 PM


Logically, cause and effect could be considered to be part of the structure of physical laws of the universe. The laws of physics could have been the first thing and as such their origin is unexplainable. In turn, the origin of the universe is unexplainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 7:33 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 05-18-2016 8:44 PM nano has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 615 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 166 of 342 (784589)
05-19-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
05-19-2016 3:10 PM


NoNukes writes:

And of course all non-causal explanation, ones which would be perfectly acceptable are ruled out both by fiat and by some questionable logic in the OP.


Forgive my absence. My wife had surgery and I am caring for her.

Would it help to define "immediate explanations" vs. "the ultimate explanation"? I maintain that 2nd things and beyond can be immediately explained by the things that came before. However this is different than the ultimate explanation of the origin of the universe.

And yes, the logic does lead one to say that ultimately nothing can be explained because ultimately the origin of the universe cannot be explained. Lets call this The Ultimate Corollary. I am in your debt for bringing it to my attention. It's why I come to this board.

However I am not looking for an explanation for the first thing. I'm not challenging anyone to find one. I'm saying that simple logic leads to the conclusion that the universe cannot be explained.


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 168 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2016 11:34 PM nano 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