Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
146 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,001 Year: 6,113/6,534 Month: 306/650 Week: 76/278 Day: 24/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 163 of 342 (784582)
05-19-2016 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2016 6:07 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
Dr. A writes:

bluegenes writes:

In order to make a proof like the one in the O.P., which requires there to be no necessary self-explanatory entity, the proof defeats itself if its argument relies on assuming any such entity to be necessary.

Would you agree?

Seems reasonable.

Then, the O.P., in informing us that because the first thing doesn't have a cause, it can't be explained, assumes a reality in which things can't be self-explanatory. If such a reality is considered a self-explanatory thing, the proof fails, and if it isn't, the proof is unfounded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 6:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 8:13 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 165 of 342 (784587)
05-19-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2016 8:13 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
In 3 and 3a and 5 and 5a the O.P. tells us that the reason the first thing can't be explained is that it can't have a prior cause. So it gives us a universal law that things can't be explained if they don't have prior causes.

Do you agree that the law is necessary to nano's proof and that he has made it clear that it would apply to any first thing (including laws themselves, which are suggested as possible first things)?

Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 8:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 11:41 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 170 of 342 (784610)
05-20-2016 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2016 11:41 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
Dr Adequate writes:

I wouldn't have called it a law so much as an observation on the definition of an explanation. If one asks "Why did that happen?" one is necessarily asking for a cause just as a question beginning with "When" requires a time.

Whether you regard it as a law or a self-explanatory truth, a reality which includes it is one necessary thing required by the O.P.

I'm not arguing that that particular reality is actually necessary, just that the O.P. is self-defeating if it assumes it.

Nano needs to establish a proof that nothing could ever be explained by necessity, while avoiding the assumption that a reality in which his logic works is a necessary thing.

Rather him than me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2016 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2016 8:54 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 172 of 342 (784663)
05-21-2016 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
05-20-2016 8:54 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
Dr. Adequate writes:

I wouldn't have called it a law so much as an observation on the definition of an explanation. If one asks "Why did that happen?" one is necessarily asking for a cause just as a question beginning with "When" requires a time.

Dr. Adequate writes:

In plainer language, he assumes that it is true. Which it is: and this truth is independent of the existence of anything.

Thanks for the explanation.

If the O.P. is defining explanation in the way you did, he could have made it clearer.

As the universe (meaning what's universal) encompasses everything, it cannot be explained by a prior cause is better than as the universe encompasses everything, it cannot be explained.

Then we could thank nano for stating the obvious, and move on.

As it is, many people will have taken "explained" in the broader sense, which would include your interesting explanation of a necessary truth above (I'll add logic and truth to reality and existence in my list of necessary entities). In this sense, that the universe could never be understood, he doesn't have a proof. You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2016 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 6:52 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2016 1:19 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 175 of 342 (784667)
05-21-2016 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by nano
05-21-2016 6:52 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
nano writes:

bluegenes writes:

You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality.

Your statement is false. I clearly state in my proof that the first thing could have always been there. As such, it has no explanation. This is an obvious, logical truth if you are willing to see it.

I understand your O.P very well. Of course there could be a thing that has always been there, and there also could be a number of things that have always been there. The point about nothingness is that if it could really be, then no single thing could ever be explained as being necessarily there. The reason your proof is obvious is that it's just saying that if something didn't have anything before it, then it can't be explained by a prior cause. However, because that's not the only way to explain things, you don't actually have a proof that the universe is inexplicable. If true nothingness could be (where? nowhere?) and if you could establish that, then you could rule out necessity as an explanation. That's what your O.P. needs.

That's why I suggested a reality in which the type of logic you're using works as being one of the necessary first things. If reality has to be, then it requires no causal explanation.

So, could non-reality exist? Could non-existence be real? If not, we can put reality and existence as two explained (by necessity) things that have no prior cause and are always there.

I can add some others as well, and if you want me to build our type of space time from there, I'll do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 6:52 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:35 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 178 of 342 (784670)
05-21-2016 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by nano
05-21-2016 8:07 AM


nano writes:

I'd like to point out that time plays no part in my proof. It could have been the first thing, yes, but then its existence can't be explained. And hence, the universe cannot be explained.

I think you're still missing the point about necessity. If an entity has to exist, then it requires no causal explanation. You're also stuck on one first thing. If one thing can exist without a prior cause, many can. Time might be one of them, and it doesn't exist in isolation, so there are still more before the kind of linear time cause and effect process we experience. I'm not describing the start of something here. These things, if necessary, would always be.

If a "world" of pure nothingness is impossible, there must be some things that don't require causal explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:07 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:46 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 179 of 342 (784671)
05-21-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by nano
05-21-2016 8:35 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
nano writes:

Your statement is false. At the beginning, at the first thing in the multiverse-of-multiverses, there is no other way to explain things.

With or without time it is always appropriate to ask "Why does the universe exist?"

The answer is because it has to exist. The universe is "somethingness". The only alternative is nothingness, which can't exist. Show that nothingness could exist, and you've shown that the universe isn't necessarily always there in some form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 8:35 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:49 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 187 of 342 (784699)
05-21-2016 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by nano
05-21-2016 12:49 PM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
nano writes:

Again, I have dealt with this. If the first thing has always existed then it's origin cannot be explained.

I'm wondering how long it will take you to realise that things that have always existed don't have an origin to explain. The clue is in the word "always".

I'm also wondering when you'll look up the word "explanation" and find out that explanations do not have to relate to prior causes.

Explain:

Why do cars have wheels?
Why is it impossible for pigs to fly?
Why does 3+3=6?
Why isn't China in North America?
Why can't someone be in two places at once?
Why is there something (the universe) rather than nothing?

Do you see what I mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by nano, posted 05-21-2016 12:49 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 190 of 342 (784739)
05-22-2016 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nano
05-22-2016 5:38 AM


Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
1) The universe is something
2) The universe encompasses all other things
3) Therefore, it cannot have an external cause
4) The universe exists
5) Therefore, the universe does not require an external cause in order to exist.
6) Therefore, an external cause isn't required in any explanation of the universe.

The first three are your proof.

The following question demands an explanation.

Q. Why is there a universe?

A. A universe would necessarily exist in all possible realities, because there has to be at least one thing to be real.

If X doesn't require Y in order to exist, the existence of X can be explained without reference to Y.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nano, posted 05-22-2016 5:38 AM nano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:17 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 192 of 342 (784741)
05-22-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr. Adequate writes:

Why isn't it possible for no thing to be real?

Ask Nano to explain why it is possible.

That's what needs to be positively demonstrated in order to make the claim in the O.P.

You'll have to get him to understand the point first.

Edited by bluegenes, : I'd say possible realities require existence, which requires at least one thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:53 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 194 of 342 (784744)
05-22-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 11:53 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr. Adequate writes:

Because it is logically consistent:

You would need to demonstrate that your logic can exist in the absence of existence and describe the non-place that it non-exists in.

How is a non-existent reality a possible one?

Dr Adequate writes:

If you want to claim that it's impossible, the ball's in your court, if you want to conjure universes into existence a priori, then you may have to do some actual work.

Are you suggesting that something that necessarily doesn't require a cause requires a causal explanation?

And are you suggesting that a claim that the universe cannot be explained is proven if no-one can currently explain it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 11:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 12:33 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 196 of 342 (784747)
05-22-2016 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 12:33 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr Adequate writes:

For example, the reality in which I am wearing my underpants on my head is possible, according to any meaningful usage of that word. Yet that "reality" is non-existent.

How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 12:56 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 198 of 342 (784749)
05-22-2016 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 12:56 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Dr. Adequate writes:

bluegenes writes:

How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible?

By virtue of not being logically inconsistent.

Is reality a thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 12:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 1:47 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 201 of 342 (784753)
05-22-2016 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 1:47 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Adequate writes:

I shouldn't have said so. Surely it's more of a quality, like blueness or octagonality. You'd wind up with some very strange consequences if you started reifying all the nouns.

In which case, it's thing dependent, and the same for existence if we view it as a state of things rather than a thing. Pure nothingness cannot be real and cannot exist without contradiction.

Not only does at least one thing exist without prior cause, as in the O.P. but at least one thing must necessarily exist in all "possible worlds".

Those that necessarily cannot have the qualities of reality and existence are in the set of impossible worlds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 1:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 4:01 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1789 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 203 of 342 (784758)
05-22-2016 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 4:01 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Adequate writes:

Well, there you're reifying "nothingness" as well.

I thought that's what you were trying to do. I'm happy with it as a concept, just as we're both happy with unicorns.

Adequate writes:

According to you, can we have a box with nothing in it?

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 4:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 9:17 PM bluegenes 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