Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
819 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 816 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
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 216 of 342 (784920)
05-25-2016 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by bluegenes
05-23-2016 4:58 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi bluegenes

bluegenes writes:

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

Where do you propose that somewhere would come from?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 05-23-2016 4:58 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2016 4:39 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 217 of 342 (784926)
05-26-2016 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by AZPaul3
05-17-2016 5:17 PM


Hi Paul

Paul writes:

It may be that the "first thing" was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

I don't know what your definition of 'nothing' is.
But if by nothing you mean non existence there would have been no quantum fluctuation.

Existence would be required for a quantum fluctuation to take place, as space and a vacuum is required.

Space and a vacuum only exist inside of the universe unless there is something that exists outside the universe. Which I have been told here many times that nothing exists outside the universe, as it was a self contained unit.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2016 5:17 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 223 of 342 (785112)
05-28-2016 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by bluegenes
05-26-2016 4:39 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi bluegenes

bluegenes writes:

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

Do you mean always as in an eternal existence where somewhere/something could exist?

I thought you believed in the Big Bang Theory?

According to the BBT the universe can not have existed eternally as it would be dead by now due to entropy.

bluegenes writes:

You're probably misunderstanding the O.P.

No, I understand that the OP allows for a first uncaused thing, which would have to be an eternal entity.

But current science does not allow for eternal existence, as it can not get to T=0 must lest past it as the math breaks down.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2016 4:39 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2016 3:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 224 of 342 (785115)
05-28-2016 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by bluegenes
05-26-2016 4:26 AM


Hi bluegenes

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. 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.

The universe does exist that is a fact.

Due to the fact that the universe is running out of usable energy it could not have existed eternally in the past.

Therefore the universe had to have a beginning to exist as it has not run out of usable energy yet.

At the present there is no scientific THEORY of how the universe began to exist. There are several guesses but there is nothing that reaches a consensus.

That means that the existence of the universe can not be explained by science.

The only way the existence of the universe can be explained so far is by the uncaused cause mentioned in the OP.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 05-26-2016 4:26 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Stile, posted 05-31-2016 12:35 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 226 of 342 (785188)
05-28-2016 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes
05-28-2016 3:12 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

Actually, the poster of the OP denies that possibility. That is one of the complaints about the OP.

In Message 1

nano writes:

2. Now consider the first thing in the universe.
a.It could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God.
b.It doesn't matter what it is.

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.
a. This to cannot be explained since the first thing still has no cause.

Sure sounds like he is talking about something that had no cause to exist that existed that is responsible for all that there is.

But if I understand his argument it is that whatever caused the universe to exist can not be explained.

Therefore since the first cause can not be explained the universe can not be explained.

If you remember I have stated several times in the last six years that whatever caused the universe to exist would be God.

Whether it was what I call God, or the God particle, or Hawking's instanton, that entity had to be able to produce all the energy required to create and power everything in the universe that we can see and no telling what we can't see.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2016 3:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2016 1:03 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 229 of 342 (785239)
05-31-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by NoNukes
05-31-2016 1:03 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

I'm referring to a different part of his argument that may not be explicitly stated in the OP. Apparently the term universe includes everything that ever existed. I proposed some natural forces outside of what is currently known as the universe, and was told that the definition of universe necessarily included them.

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense as none of them could exist until the universe existed. Therefore they could not cause the universe to exist.

The entities he talks about would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to cause the universe to exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2016 1:03 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by nano, posted 05-31-2016 2:14 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2016 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 230 of 342 (785241)
05-31-2016 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Stile
05-31-2016 12:35 PM


Hi Stile

Stile writes:

I would simply say that the existence of the universe is currently unexplained.

Yes that has to be the scientific answer.

But the Bible tells us God created the heavens and earth in the beginning.

I know the scientific community does not like to give any credence to the Bible but at present it is the only book that tells us how it began to exist and why we are here.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Stile, posted 05-31-2016 12:35 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Tangle, posted 05-31-2016 2:31 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 234 of 342 (785250)
06-01-2016 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by nano
05-31-2016 2:14 PM


Hi nano

nano writes:

You are incorrect.

In Message 54 you said:

nano writes:

As the proof shows only the first thing in the universe cannot be explained.

In Message 60 you said:

nano writes:

As the proof shows, when you consider the first thing in the universe being without cause then the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

In Message 81 you said:

nano writes:

kbertsche writes:

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?
His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Yes, you read me correctly. I was trying to keep the proof simple. I like to think of it as the null set.

So where am I incorrect when I say?

ICANT writes:

Yes he does use the phrase that the entities he mentions is included in the universe which makes his entire argument nonsense as none of them could exist until the universe existed. Therefore they could not cause the universe to exist.

The entities he talks about would have to exist outside of the universe to be able to cause the universe to exist.

So are the entities you mention inside of the universe as you agreed with kbertsche as to being your position which you are arguing in the posts I quoted above.

Or, are they outside the universe as you now claim your statement in the OP that "universe = multiverse"?

Why do you keep stating, "the first thing in the universe cannot be explained" if you allow for things to be outside of the universe.

The standard theory does not allow for anything to be outside of our present universe as it was a self contained unit that was expanding one billionth of a second after T=0.

What existed at T=0? No one knows as the math's don't work there.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nano, posted 05-31-2016 2:14 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by nano, posted 06-01-2016 8:29 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 235 of 342 (785251)
06-01-2016 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by NoNukes
05-31-2016 2:53 PM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

If you find that useful, please explain how.

As I have said several times over the past 9 years whatever created the universe and everything in it had to be able to supply enough energy to create the mass in the entire universe.

Whatever entity that could produce that much energy would be God.

We can rule out two branes banging together and producing the universe as they would have to have a vacuum in which to exist and bang together. That would require existence of space in which the vacuum could exist.

Insert multiverse at this point. That would provide a place for the branes to exist and bang together.

But energy cannot be created so we would not exist today if the multiverse hypothesis was correct. As the useable energy would now be all converted to unusable energy. Therefore there would be no energy to create the mass required for our universe. Thus since this would have been going on for an eternity the universe that run out of usable energy would be a dead universe.

The same thing applies to Hawking's instanton.

Existence would have to exist for the universe to be able to exist.
Then there would be something for the universe to expand into.

Whatever that entity was that existed prior to our universe would be responsible for creating the universe.

That entity would have to be outside of the universe without a cause to exist, therefore an eternal entity, outside of time as we know it.

You can call that entity anything you want to call it. I prefer to call that entity God.

Science cannot explain the existence of the universe.

God can and does explain the existence of the universe.

God Bless


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2016 2:53 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2016 4:02 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 241 of 342 (785355)
06-03-2016 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by NoNukes
06-01-2016 4:02 AM


Re: Uncaused things don't need prior cause explanations.
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

You understand that a vacuum is actually nothing, right?

I actually thought a vacuum was space devoid of matter.

NoNukes writes:

The two branes might well have existed in another universe, right? I know that is not allowed in the OPs theory.


Sure if multiverse's exist.

But according to nano quote from OP

quote:
for my purposes the term universe = multiverse = all of existence.

Universe first then its inhabitants.

Back to real Multiverse's.
But if the math don't work before T=0 + 1 trillionth of a second how can multiverse's ever be considered a hypothesis must less a theory ?

NoNukes writes:

Secondly, the total net energy in the current universe is at least approximately zero, and may well be zero.

Alan Guth's pipe dream of a free lunch.
Inflation was necessary to solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the magnetic monopole problem.

Problems created by inflation.
What started inflation?
What caused it to stop?
During the time of inflation the expansion was faster than the speed of light, how is that possible?
What caused the expansion to slow down?
What caused expansion to be speeding up today?

NoNukes writes:

God is simply part of the universe. My question was regarding why you might find such a situation of interest to you.

Whatever caused our universe to begin to exist would have to exist prior to the universe beginning to exist. It would have to be outside of the universe and uncaused whether it be God, the God particle, two branes banging together or Hawking's instanton.

nano writes:

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

This sentence erases the empty universe of #1 as there is no thing before it not even an empty universe.

Had he said the first thing in the universe had no cause since there was nothing before it. He would have been repeating the OP.

The problem with that is that the universe already existed.

The OP could have been much clearer.

I feel like a cat chasing his tail.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2016 4:02 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 242 of 342 (785356)
06-03-2016 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by nano
06-01-2016 8:29 AM


Hi nano

nano writes:

I could have been more clear in my OP but as I have stated I was trying to keep it simple.

You sure failed at keeping it simple.

nano writes:

1. Consider an empty universe.

Where did the empty universe come from?

nano writes:

3. This first thing has no cause since there was nothing before it.

But you have an empty universe already existing so there would be something before the first thing in the universe.

nano writes:

4. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.


Sure it can.

According to you it already existed which would make it be a uncaused entity.

nano writes:

5. Corollary - Alternately, the first thing might have always been there.

Since according to the OP the empty universe existed it could not have existed for eternity or maybe you can explain how it could.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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 243 by nano, posted 06-07-2016 4:17 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 246 of 342 (785608)
06-07-2016 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by nano
06-07-2016 4:17 PM


Hi nano

nano writes:

I don’t know if you don’t get my proof,

I think I understand what you want your argument to be.

But you want to start off with an empty universe.
That means you have something existing that you call an empty universe.

My question to you was where did that empty universe come from?

Now if you want to say existence existed eternally in the past, I could go along with that. Then later things, including the universe existed in that existence.

But no you say:

nano writes:

The empty universe = the null set

Universe exists but is empty.
How does an empty universe measure zero?

nano writes:

There is nothing there, as in nothing exists. Literally, nothing.

How can you have an empty universe and there be an absence of existence?

You can't. Because you have something that exists.

Since you have something that exists eternally it is explained as an eternal entity that has no cause.

nano writes:

I should think you would like my proof. With correct understanding it demonstrates your point.

Just give me the facts, as I search for the truth.

My point is that science and the Bible speak to the heavens and the earth beginning to exist.

Science can not explain the existence of the Universe.
The Bible does explain the existence of the Universe.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by nano, posted 06-07-2016 4:17 PM nano has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 247 of 342 (785609)
06-07-2016 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2016 5:26 PM


Hi Cat,

Cat writes:

You see how there is something, rather than nothing, in that second quote?

Why is the null set necessary to have something existing?

The quote box is there which means something exists, a quote box.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2016 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 10:14 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 253 of 342 (785642)
06-08-2016 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 10:14 AM


Hi Cat

Cat writes:

And the quote box is in a message,

But you were presenting the quote box as the first thing just like nano's empty universe.

Existence is what is required for anything to exist, or begin to exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 3:43 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 257 of 342 (785677)
06-08-2016 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2016 3:43 PM


Hi Cat

Cat writes:

Existence is a property that things have, it does not exist independent of things. Existence cannot be a prerequisite for things anymore than things can be a prerequisite for existence. They're intertwined, one does not come before the other.

So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.

Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?

But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.

It would be an uncaused eternal entity.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2016 9:01 PM ICANT 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