Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
975 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 972 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,081 Year: 6,193/6,534 Month: 386/650 Week: 156/278 Day: 24/30 Hour: 1/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 209 of 342 (784780)
05-23-2016 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2016 9:17 PM


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

Interesting. Does that apply to every particular thing, or just some things? For example, can you have a box with no unicorns in it?

Certainly. And it could be a horse box without a horse. If we could take everything out of our box, every particle, and try to get an absence of space time itself, what might happen at the point where we seem to achieve it, instead of the desired result, whoosh "big bang", we've created another set of dimensions, lots of somethingness, and become gods.

That may be the sort of thing that happened somewhere (not nowhere) 14 billion years ago.

We would, in the course of the experiment, have explained somethingness as necessary. We would have reasonably explained the universe (not just our dimensions) by showing that reality doesn't tolerate true nothingness even in a small area.

In order for someone to have a proof that the universe is inexplicable, they need to show that it can never be explained without reference to prior cause.

It may be worth noting that the universe, for the same reason that it has no prior cause for its existence, has no prior constraints. If things can be explained by prior cause, why can't they be explained by the absence of constraints?

Why does the universe exist?

Because it encompasses all things and does exist, it doesn't require a prior cause, and there could never have been anything to prevent it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2016 9:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 5:49 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 05-25-2016 10:30 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 213 of 342 (784829)
05-24-2016 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2016 5:49 PM


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

That seems to have been done.

To one of us.

If a logical argument assumes any thing to be necessary, it can't be used against the necessity of somethingness. If logic is contingent, it requires somethingness.

Does logic necessarily exist, or is it contingent?

All things are necessary or contingent
The universe cannot have a prior cause
The universe cannot be contingent on anything
The universe is necessary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2016 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 218 of 342 (784929)
05-26-2016 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by nano
05-25-2016 6:27 AM


nano writes:

My proof is like leading someone to the North Pole and asking them to go north. Then they suddenly realize they can't do that.

That's an explanation by analogy.

Your O.P. is actually a partial explanation of the universe, which goes like this:

First, you define what we mean by universe. It encompasses everything so it's the set of all things. Then you point out that, as such, no single thing or collection of things can be its prior cause.

You then point out that this would apply whether the universe popped into existence or always exists. That's as far as you go, because you mistakenly assume at this point that what your explanation has established is that the universe is inexplicable.

What you could have done is continued with the logical explanation after adding the observation that the universe does exist. Therefore, the universe does not require a prior cause. Therefore, any explanation of the existence of the universe doesn't have to refer to a prior cause now that we've reached the point in our explanation that it doesn't have one and doesn't need one. We can also conclude that the suggestion at the end of your O.P., that the universe always existed, is correct, because there cannot be anything (including time) prior to it, so there is no "prior".

Having followed this through, I'm claiming that the existence of the universe is explained by necessity. If there's no possible alternative, then it has to exist. So, do you understand why Dr. Adequate and I are discussing whether or not pure nothingness can be regarded as "possible"? Because the O.P. definition of the universe encompasses everything, pure nothingness is the only conceivable alternative.

That's where a discussion on whether or not the universe can be explained inevitably leads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nano, posted 05-25-2016 6:27 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by nano, posted 05-26-2016 3:02 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2016 2:51 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 219 of 342 (784930)
05-26-2016 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
05-25-2016 10:30 PM


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

Where do you propose that somewhere would come from?

God Bless

I propose that there's always somewhere and always something and that there's no such thing as "before time".

You're probably misunderstanding the O.P. It allows for a first thing and allows it to be your god, but merely points out that a first thing can't have a prior cause (obviously) and therefore can't be explained by one (obviously). Read "universe" in the O.P. as meaning "everything" including all gods.

Necessity Bless


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 05-25-2016 10:30 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 05-28-2016 1:44 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 222 of 342 (785001)
05-27-2016 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by nano
05-26-2016 3:02 PM


nano writes:

All the hubbub over the term "explain" is just quibbling. My proof is logical and useful. However, your assertion that the universe is explained by necessity is very interesting. I'm just not sure its logical. I'll have to think about it.

You would need to change the wording of your proof if you accept that anything could possibly be explained in any way other than by prior cause. That still leaves you with a proof that the universe cannot have a prior cause (and, logically, that it cannot be explained by a prior cause; and, logically, that it doesn't require a prior cause, 'cos it's here).

If you enjoy doing proofs, here's a good suggestion for a title:

"A Simplified Proof That No Thing or Set of Things Could Prevent The Universe From Existing".

Once we've defined the universe as including all things, it follows logically, doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by nano, posted 05-26-2016 3:02 PM nano has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 238 of 342 (785289)
06-02-2016 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by nano
06-01-2016 8:29 AM


nano writes:

Plus, the logic only works when applied to all of existence. Nevertheless, I have edited the OP from "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence".

Now you need to show that the non-existence of everything can exist in order to support your claim that the universe can't be explained.

If non-existence can't exist, then the existence of a universe is explained by necessity. There has to be one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nano, posted 06-01-2016 8:29 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by nano, posted 06-02-2016 9:33 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 240 of 342 (785331)
06-02-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by nano
06-02-2016 9:33 AM


nano writes:

I don't need to do that since there are only two possibilities with the first thing. It either created itself from nothing or was always there. Neither state can be explained.

If A caused B is an explanation of B, why isn't B caused B an explanation of B, and why isn't "B was always there" an explanation of B?

If the universe doesn't require a prior cause (and clearly it cannot) then why do you insist that the absence of {something unnecessary for its existence} means that its existence can't be explained?

nano writes:

And logically there can certainly be nothing. Witness the null set.

Where, when and how can pure nothingness be witnessed? And what thing or set of things could cause anything other than the universe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by nano, posted 06-02-2016 9:33 AM nano has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 262 of 342 (785705)
06-09-2016 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by nano
06-09-2016 8:25 AM


Easy explanation
nano writes:

I state that logically we do know that the origin of all of existence will never be explained.

You could state that, logically, the petticoat of the universe will never be explained. That's because it doesn't wear a petticoat, cannot wear a petticoat, and doesn't require one.

It doesn't have an origin, either, because an origin would be part of it.

The universe has to be there, no thing can exist as an alternative, and that clearly explains its existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by nano, posted 06-09-2016 8:25 AM nano has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(4)
Message 273 of 342 (785760)
06-10-2016 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ICANT
06-10-2016 2:00 AM


Where and when can non-existence be?
ICANT writes:

As I said non existence is way over your head.

Oh where and when can non-existence be?
Its present absence always eludes me
I've heard it said
Look overhead
In Heaven non-existence you will see


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2016 2:00 AM ICANT has seen this message but 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