Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 31 of 220 (674136)
09-26-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Son Goku
09-26-2012 10:55 AM


Son Goku writes:
Not so. Imagine a universe where an object lives for one second before dying and creating the next object....
I think you are ignoring how your proposed sets (universes) populate. Surely, logically, there must be a "first thing" or "something that has always been there" in your sets. Also, there may be quantum mechanical predications that make no use of cause and effect, but I'm sure they make use of quantum mechanical laws. It's really just semantics, isn't it?. Lets use "scientific processes" in place of "scientific method".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Son Goku, posted 09-26-2012 10:55 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Son Goku, posted 09-27-2012 10:44 AM nano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 220 (674139)
09-26-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nano
09-26-2012 5:00 PM


Fortunately logic has nothing to do with reality.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:00 PM nano has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 33 of 220 (674140)
09-26-2012 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Son Goku
09-26-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Always?
It's hard to picture only "laws" existing.
I don't really believe in the duality of "laws" and "material something": I only see the laws, and "material" being a facet.
This goes back to when I first learnt string theory, coming at it from the GR/QG perspective. The classic particle physics (Green Schwarz Witten) approach is to embed the strings in the pre-existing target space (our space-time.) But the more fundemental way to picture this is to dismiss any notion of target-space and simply look at the 2d string world-sheet. The fields on the world sheet can be interpretted as coordinates on some "pseudo"space, and the coupling constants between the fields magically seem to form a metric on this pseudo-space. Push this far enough and you see that in low energy this pseudo-space seems to be the entire world of d=10 Supergravity.
So if the "real world" doesn't really exist, only the 2d world-sheet, perhaps we push back another layer and the world-sheet isn't "real", and on we go.
At this point, I lost all faith in there being anything material or "real" about the "real world"
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Son Goku, posted 09-26-2012 5:31 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 220 (674143)
09-26-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tangle
09-26-2012 5:44 PM


It's a complete cliche, but simply saying that there must be a first cause that solves your logical paradox simply introduces another - what caused the 'first' cause?'
But surely that's his point: that eventually we must run up against something inexplicable --- either by virtue of being a first cause, or by virtue of not having a first cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2012 5:44 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 6:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 09-26-2012 6:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 220 (674146)
09-26-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by cavediver
09-26-2012 5:32 PM


Re: Always?
And as with the last time this came up, I would suggest that "nothing" is ill-defined ...
"For all x, there does not exist y such that y = x." That seems to meet the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 5:32 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 09-26-2012 6:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 6:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 50 by Son Goku, posted 09-27-2012 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
nano
Member (Idle past 1292 days)
Posts: 110
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 36 of 220 (674147)
09-26-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:11 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
But surely that's his point: that eventually we must run up against something inexplicable --- either by virtue of being a first cause, or by virtue of not having a first cause.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:33 PM nano has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 220 (674148)
09-26-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Always?
I quit paying attention to that logic stuff when I was about 15 and saw the logical statement, "All A's are not C's."
Godwin's law, anticipated by decades!!
(read it aloud)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 38 of 220 (674150)
09-26-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Always?
"For all x, there does not exist y such that y = x." That seems to meet the case.
In the context of mathematics, certainly. My empty universes are merely advanced versions of the empty set. But do we have the luxury of mathematcs to describe this "absolute nothing", in the absence of this "something" that enables the existence of the mathematics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:37 PM cavediver has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 220 (674152)
09-26-2012 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nano
09-26-2012 6:17 PM


Exactly.
Except, as I said, it's invidious to say that there's no scientific explanation. It's like saying: "Black people tell lies". So they do, but why single them out? So far as your reasoning goes, it's not just that there can be no scientific explanation, it's that there can be no explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 6:17 PM nano has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 40 of 220 (674153)
09-26-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:11 PM


Dr A writes:
But surely that's his point: that eventually we must run up against something inexplicable --- either by virtue of being a first cause, or by virtue of not having a first cause.
Given that a cause without a cause AND a first cause are both logical paradoxes you've run out of logic. There's nowhere else to go - which is the clue that logic is not going to help you with this problem.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 220 (674155)
09-26-2012 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
09-26-2012 6:24 PM


Re: Always?
In the context of mathematics, certainly. My empty universes are merely advanced versions of the empty set. But do we have the luxury of mathematcs to describe this "absolute nothing", in the absence of this "something" that enables the existence of the mathematics?
It's true that if nothing existed, then we couldn't say that nothing existed, but then if things existed but we didn't then we couldn't say that either --- but it would still be a logically consistent state of affairs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 6:24 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 6:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 42 of 220 (674158)
09-26-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2012 6:37 PM


Re: Always?
...but it would still be a logically consistent state of affairs.
Your example of demonstrating this is to suggest a mathematical definition of the empty set. And I completely agree that this is logically consistent. And I would go as far as to say that this is pretty much as close to nothing as we can get. But i still see this as "something", and not "nothing". From the empty set we can build the whole vast structure of number. Such a building block hardly deserves the term "nothing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 6:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 7:23 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 220 (674164)
09-26-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nano
09-26-2012 5:38 PM


nano writes:
Perhaps I should specify "scientific processes" instead of "scientific method"? It would not change my argument.
Yes, that's true, it would not change your argument and it would still be wrong, because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no apparent cause.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nano, posted 09-26-2012 5:38 PM nano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2012 7:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 53 by nano, posted 09-27-2012 12:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 220 (674165)
09-26-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by cavediver
09-26-2012 6:52 PM


Re: Always?
Your example of demonstrating this is to suggest a mathematical definition of the empty set.
No, that's not the definition of the empty set, that's an assertion that nothing exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 09-26-2012 6:52 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 220 (674166)
09-26-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
09-26-2012 7:17 PM


Yes, that's true, it would not change your argument and it would still be wrong, because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no apparent cause.
This seems to me to be a non sequitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 09-26-2012 7:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024