Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Beyond reason

  1. May 9, 2006 #1
    i have some question and i hope i put this topic in the right thread..

    >> is there any philosophy or science maybe that until now has not yet been discovered that could serve as an answer to the question about on how all things in the universe [including us] came into existence. For me i speculated that there is/are really ultimate explanation on this and it is still beyond reach as to date. i mean this is extremely higher than our available reasons. as of now i think the theory of big bang is not the most precise explanation...any idea?o:)
  2. jcsd
  3. May 9, 2006 #2
    Are there not only two possibilities to your question, both from reason (1) that universe had no beginning (2) negation of (1) ? Reason is the sole arbiter of truth--no true explanation of any "thing" can be "beyond reason".
  4. May 10, 2006 #3
    With all respect to what Rade has pointed out, I'd like to say that you can find a reason for the way things are today by examining a phenomenon and its cause very closely. This is what science attempts to do with most or all phenomena.

    Whether or not there was a big bang or there was no starting point to the universe, as it is, the universe has been a stage for the development of certain principles and by certain laws. The majority of the laws and principles have to do with conservation of energy. This means the laws lean toword efficiency in the system that is the universe.

    So, you could say that the evolution or the over-layering and careful, natural selection that is a result of the universal laws and principles and of all the mechanisms in the universe.....as you say, including us....... are a result of certain laws and principles that have been developed within the system that is the universe. So the "reason", you might say, for all of this phenomena is because this is what results from the development of efficent systems within a universe.
  5. May 12, 2006 #4
    okay, and so can we say that the "reason" that you have mentioned which is the sole arbiter of truth has not yet discovered until now?
    For me, im on the idea that if such explanation has not yet fully furnished because of insuffieciency of available reasons that we have now that is why i call it "beyond reason" for emphasis what i mean is "beyond our available reasons". when time comes that such a reason would be discovered then all theories that not in consonance with that will be falsified...:smile: :smile: :smile:

    i have posted this thread because maybe there are other persons in this forum that could give us an explanation on how all things in the universe came into existence.

    everytime i read the theory of big bang i still came to a point of asking "who made" or "what causes" the existence of such a particle smaller than atom then exploded and continue to expand until to date...
  6. May 12, 2006 #5

    if that is so can we say that the "reason" for all this things "may or may not" reach to suffice the explanation on the beginning of everything..

    talking of development, indubitably we cant discount the possibilities of uncertainty on development, like the way the development of an egg. not all eggs will became chick...

    so if the "reason" that is available today is dependent on the development of efficient systems, then maybe we cant reach that "reason" sometimes in the future as the development goes on and on... we cant have the correct explanation after all...isnt it?

    >>>>nys guys, i found having good time in discussing wit u!!!o:)
  7. May 12, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How can you expect us to know about a science or philosophy that hasn't been discovered yet?
  8. May 12, 2006 #7
    To the point!And the theories of existence are worth studing both in philosophy and mathematics,and have been studied by many great people.
    Is linear algebra that bored?:wink:

    To young e :

    I thought of the same question when I was young.Later I became aware of that sometimes we should focuse on the question itself!Other than be busy seeking an answer to it,maybe we should ask first whether the question is a question?
    Russell says that to get rid of the thought formed in your earlier years is a beginning of philosophy.Sometimes our question roots in some notions given by parents and teachers in our childhood.When you reflect on those notions seriously,very ofen you find them not making much sense.
    Does Time necesaryly has to have a start point?Kant were thinking of it hard,I think,for if not he could not have concluded that time is part of mind ,not of matter,and is kind of born instinct given by God.So,reconsider your question...:tongue2:
  9. May 14, 2006 #8
    because i expect a lot..:approve:

    with respect to ur statement here, i consider it as the missing parameter when i first posted my question above..thanks...:smile:

    for emphasis, let me site an example.
    the famous greek philosopher democritus said long time before that matter is composed of indivisible parts called atoms but unfortunately that idea was disparaged by his other in the person of aristotle. Now ever since and it was not until the time of john dalton that the world consider him right. now is it wrong to say that during those periods what democritus have in mind is "BEYOND REASON"? Consider that the complete REASON which is the sole arbiter of truth has only been discovered a hundred of years after democritus and as i hav mentioned above it was not unitl the time of j. dalton. Even now as the people of science community follow those notions we have discovered many elementary particles smaller than the nucleus that we called now quarks and many anti quarks and lepton and so on qwerty asdfg zxcvbc.

    enough history!!!:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
    Back to my question above in the starting thread; i came up with those questions because i am thinking that those REASONS was pre determined.
  10. May 14, 2006 #9
    1. to me, YES thats why i asked an explanation if there are.
    these statements seems one of the primers why i asked this questions.
    The corrct explanation on this plays a significant role because it will follow later on WHY ARE WE HERE!? certainly you will not accept any idea of putting mankind as just a part of universal development that in some other perspective maybe we will be called A CERTAIN WASTE OF IT [DEVELOMENT]

    2. Maybe thats just a part of mind nor not a part of matter or any other but it has a beginning...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook