A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

A random letter generator would be expected to hit one of the keys on the top row, a numeral, at some point in the more than 600 consecutive key strikes needed to produce the sonnet. You could not expect a random letter generator to completely avoid 25% of the keyboard for more than 600 consecutive key strikes.

That would make it non-random.

It is impossible to produce a Shakespearean sonnet at random even in infinite time.

No it would be produced infinite times.

I don't think you understand what the words random and infinite mean.

I suggest a basic primer on probability too.

An interesting (perhaps) follow-up:

Neil deGrasse Tyson was interviewed in the January 2013 issue of Sky magazine. He was asked "What was around before the Big Bang?". He answered "We don't know. That's the answer. We have some strong ideas but they're not elevated to the level of theory yet. But one of them is that we might be one bubble of many bubbles in a multiverse. The multiverse would have been around before we were born in it, but that just pushes it farther back. Where'd the multiverse come from?..."

I don't think scientists talk enough about this logical dilemma. For instance, Stephen Hawking spoke at CalTech in April 2013. From what I can gather, he essentially said he favored the multiverse explanation of where the universe came from, but (as far as I can tell, I don't have the text) he did not go further and discuss where the multiverse came from.

FYI - The quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson is impossible to find online. I can post a scan (if allowed) from the physical magazine if anyone is interested.

But there is no logical dilemma.

Hi nano,

nano writes: 1. Consider the beginning of the universe. 2. There was either a "first thing" or "something has always been here".

I would like to take this 1 step further.

There has always been existence or existence had a beginning to exist.

Existence= the universe and everything in it including any multiverses or superverse. In other words everything that exists or has existed.

What is the opposite of existence?

Non-existence is the opposite of existence.
That would be no universe, multiverse, superverse, branes, or instantons, or a vacuum for the instanton or branes to exist in.
There would be no existence for vertical time to exist in, or any substance.

nano writes: 8. Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically explained.

Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

You say, but that is not a scientific explanation. Well that is the answer I get from scientist.

God Bless,

Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know". You say, but that is not a scientific explanation. Well that is the answer I get from scientist.

Beats making stuff up.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wholeheartedly support Tyson's statement of "We don't know" and "..but that just pushes it farther back". This is the kind if refreshing talk about the beginning of the universe that I don't see enough of from scientists.

Maybe I am projecting too much onto Tyson's statement here, but I believe when he says "..but that just pushes it farther back" he is clearly referring to the logical "problem" of the beginning of the universe. It simply can't be explained logically. That is why he says "We don't know".

No, he says we don't know because we don't know. We may never know. Bu that does not mean that it cannot be explained logically. We don't know whether or not it can be explained logically, although many scientists suspect that it can.

The biggest problem anyone has, in approaching what can loosely be called "the origin of the universe" from a "logical" perspective, rather than a physics / mathematical perspective, is that it is really hard to get day to day "logical" thinking around the fact that the big bang actually created time. The concept of "before" the big bang is meaningless - like further north than the north pole.

And when you accept that, all day to day "logical" thinking of cause and effect goes out the window (in relation to the singularity at the heart of the big bang, anyway).

There is some theorizing being done, at the cutting edge of physics, which might provide the shape of an answer - but saying it doesn't make logical sense is, I'm afraid, meaningless. The universe doesn't give a stuff about our "logic".

And it may just be, that the answer to "why does the universe exist" is "why not ?"

It's certainly, at the very least, a current issue to be solved, otherwise Tyson would not say "We don't know" and "Where'd the multiverse come from?".

And even without time its always appropriate to ask why the universe exists.

Sure it can be explained, every time I ask what existed at T=0 I get the answer, "We don't know".

Well "we don't know" isn't an explanation. It's an honest answer to the question. Because, science tends to be very cautious when it says "we know".

Of course there are countless smarty pants working on the answer so it's likely we will eventually know for sure.

u say, but that is not a scientific explanation.

How can saying "I don't know" be an explanation?

- Oni