Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
73 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,241 Year: 4,353/6,534 Month: 567/900 Week: 91/182 Day: 25/38 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
Diomedes
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 973
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 150 of 342 (784539)
05-19-2016 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dogmafood
05-18-2016 10:59 PM


He assumes that they had a beginning. Things that have always been do not require an initial cause.

And this is actually verified via the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy.

quote:
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another.

By virtue of that law, the implication is that there is no first cause requirement for energy. It simply has always been in existence.

I have had this discussion with Creationists in the past when they try to invoke the Cosmological Argument that necessitates the need for a first cause. Which they label 'God'. But as I indicate to them, from an energy standpoint, there is no causal requirement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dogmafood, posted 05-18-2016 10:59 PM Dogmafood has seen this message

  
Diomedes
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 973
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 278 of 342 (785798)
06-11-2016 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by nano
06-10-2016 9:06 PM


Not really. If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist, then normal 1st thing rules would apply and you could logically ask "Where did it come from?"

Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.

It is easier to think of the universe and the singularity as different 'states'. Not unlike water changing from liquid to vapor. The universe, at the expansion event, went through a state change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by nano, posted 06-10-2016 9:06 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2016 1:49 PM Diomedes has taken no action
 Message 281 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:34 AM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 973
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 285 of 342 (785942)
06-13-2016 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by nano
06-12-2016 6:34 AM


Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.

And they cannot be answered.

In actuality, there is no logical segue way from the singularity to asking why there is something rather than nothing. Existence does not require a temporal component. Asking 'why' is also not really a valid question in that circumstance as you are now getting into philosophical constructs versus physics-based assertions. 'Why is there something rather than nothing' or 'Why does the universe exist' are along the same lines as asking 'why do I exist'. It is a question assuming that existence requires a purpose of some sort. And in actuality, existence is not in anyway predicated on the notion of any sort of purpose.

If you are asserting that the philosophical questions themselves cannot be answered, that is due to the ambiguity of the question itself and the fact that it is attempting to apply meaning to a mechanism that is not necessarily meaning-based.

Note that these statements are common in religious circles in the realm of 'why did god allow my loved one to die' or 'why did god let me get sick'. Once again, they are attempting to assert meaning or purpose to a specific situation or idea, but they don't, in and of themselves, have any absolute proofs. Which is why the response is often 'the lord works in mysterious ways'. The answer is just as ambiguous as the question.

Pertaining to the discovery around the nature of the universe, it is far more logical to assert the concepts of randomness and chance. Since we already know that quantum mechanics is chance-based, the nature of the universe and how it manifested from a previous state is more akin to a random event as opposed to any purposeful event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by nano, posted 06-12-2016 6:34 AM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by nano, posted 06-14-2016 1:10 PM Diomedes has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022