Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
703 online now:
dwise1, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 699 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,082 Year: 6,194/6,534 Month: 387/650 Week: 157/278 Day: 25/30 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 173 of 342 (784665)
05-21-2016 6:43 AM


Why would I limit my thinking to only our universe? Why would anyone? It's rather myopic.

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 174 of 342 (784666)
05-21-2016 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 5:06 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
Then we could thank nano for stating the obvious, and move on.

The problem is its not obvious to most people. They are looking for an explanation for the origin of the universe and won't find one. They involve themselves in academic constructs that mean nothing. The logic that the universe cannot be explained is simple and as you have said its "obvious".

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.

Most people seem to feel that the emperor must have clothes. It's obvious he does not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 5:06 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:04 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 176 of 342 (784668)
05-21-2016 8:07 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:59 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 177 of 342 (784669)
05-21-2016 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 8:04 AM


Re: A Simplified Proof That the Universe Can Be Explained.
However, because that's not the only way to explain things, you don't actually have a proof that the universe is inexplicable.

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?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:04 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 9:12 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 180 of 342 (784680)
05-21-2016 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 8:59 AM


I think you're still missing the point about necessity. If an entity has to exist, then it requires no causal explanation.

No. Your concept of "necessity" plays no part in my proof. You seem to be missing the simple logic.

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.

False. Many first things = Group A. Group A = the first thing. Simple logic. First things can't be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe can't be explained.

If a "world" of pure nothingness is impossible, there must be some things that don't require causal explanations.[/qs]
So? First things can't be explained. That is part of my proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 8:59 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 12:55 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 181 of 342 (784681)
05-21-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by bluegenes
05-21-2016 9:12 AM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 9:12 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2016 4:38 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 183 of 342 (784686)
05-21-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 12:55 PM


I am genuinely interested. What types of explanations are not causal? And all challenges are accepted and legitimate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 12:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 05-21-2016 1:18 PM nano has seen this message but not replied
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 4:10 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 188 of 342 (784728)
05-22-2016 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by NoNukes
05-21-2016 4:10 PM


You have co-opted the word explanation to mean 'only causal origin stories traceable to ultimate causes'.

I have said that there are immediate causes separate from the ultimate cause of everything.

If this is insufficient for you I would ask if you disagree with my base premise that the first thing cannot be explained. I believe you would say it is obvious. Very good then.

The problem is its not obvious to most people. They are looking for an explanation for the origin of the universe and won't find one.

In this way, even if my proof is a logical tautology it is still a useful one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by NoNukes, posted 05-21-2016 4:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by bluegenes, posted 05-22-2016 11:13 AM nano has not replied
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2016 2:10 PM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 204 of 342 (784759)
05-22-2016 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Hyroglyphx
05-22-2016 6:38 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:

Not sure your logic follows. Just because something is yet to be sufficiently explained does not mean it cannot ever be explained. In an Infinite Regression model, you could say the creation of this universe was precipitated by the destruction of a previous one ad infinitum.

In general, arguments from ignorance are very weak but infinite regression is interesting. However, isn't it really the same as a causal loop and therefore illogical? At any rate it would be "the thing that has always been there" and therefore could not be explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-22-2016 6:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2016 4:31 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 205 of 342 (784763)
05-22-2016 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by NoNukes
05-22-2016 2:10 PM


NoNukes writes:

How does that address my point. What I have said is that the term "explanation" is not limited to origin stories or causal explanations, but that you have limited the definition to such things for the purpose of this thread. I have acknowledged your right to do place such limitations.

OK. Your only argument is over the use of the term "explained". As such I certainly acknowledge your right to do so though it seems like quibbling and doesn't address the merits of the proof at all.

In general though I would say there is certainly a broad continuum of explanation for anything. There are good explanations and bad ones. There are partial (or immediate) explanations clear up through almost ultimate explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2016 2:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 1:48 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 210 of 342 (784806)
05-23-2016 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
05-23-2016 1:48 AM


NoNukes writes:

It is as if you have defined father to include only living males, and then offered to prove that we could not identify an orphan's father. Yeah, that's true, but so what?


I disagree of course, but at this point its best left up to individual readers to decide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2016 1:48 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 211 of 342 (784807)
05-23-2016 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2016 4:31 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:

In that case it would seem that if all things are temporal, at least something about the properties of the universe is either infinite or exists outside of the time-space continuum.


Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2016 4:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 214 of 342 (784888)
05-25-2016 6:27 AM


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.

Thanks to Dr. Adequate for suggesting this analogy earlier in this thread.


Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2016 3:23 PM nano has replied
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2016 4:26 AM nano has replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 220 of 342 (784935)
05-26-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by NoNukes
05-25-2016 3:23 PM


Of course it depends on the person and the extent of their thinking on the subject. Therefore my proof is useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2016 3:23 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 221 of 342 (784964)
05-26-2016 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by bluegenes
05-26-2016 4:26 AM


bluegenes writes:

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.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2016 4:26 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by bluegenes, posted 05-27-2016 3:07 AM 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