The Universe Exists Because It Has To

  • Thread starter Evolver
  • Start date
118
0
This is an attempt to recognize a base physical property of the universe itself that also describes why it must exist according to this property. This approach is very counterintuitive, but should not be misinterpreted as ontological or metaphysical. Intuition is a human notion based on everyday human experiences... the existence of the universe in it's entirety is not an everyday human experience and, thus, should not be limited by those notions. This is an analysis of a physical observation of the universe itself:

First, think about the concept of 'nothing' or 'zero'. These are simply just that, concepts, used to help illustrate a human-made string of reasoning. But these concepts are not, themselves, physical properties of the universe. When we hold an apple in our hand we can say we have an apple, but when we take it away we cannot say we are holding 'no apple' anymore than we can say we are holding 'no egg', or 'no rock', or 'no anything' for that matter. It's just a man-made concept to help illustrate that line of thinking.

In actuality, there is no such thing as 'nothing', and that is a physical property of the universe itself. Even in 'empty' space there are a slew of virtual particles bubbling about as well as various forces interacting with each other. Since matter and energy are never created nor destroyed (simply altered), and the universe is made of matter and energy... it can be assumed that the universe would never stop existing by it's very own physical properties. It can also be conjectured from this line of logic that since 'nothing' is not a physical property of the universe itself, it exists as a result of some base rule set, and was not required to have been created from 'nothing'.
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
since 'nothing' is not a physical property of the universe itself, that it therefore MUST exist in accordance with it's own physical nature
All you have done is define existense as an essential part of the universe, and then claimed your defintion as proof that your definition is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

which is similar to this argument for the existense of god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

All we really know is that the universe, in some form, does exist. How it came about, or if it did... who knows.
 
118
0
All you have done is define existense as an essential part of the universe, and then claimed your defintion as proof that your definition is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

which is similar to this argument for the existense of god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

All we really know is that the universe, in some form, does exist. How it came about, or if it did... who knows.
Incorrect... I'm saying that existing is a physical property of the universe and that not existing is not a physical property. I have used physical property in order to directly stave off any ontological or metaphysical approach. Matter and energy are never created nor destroyed... the universe is made of matter and energy... these are physical and measurable qualities.
 
1,328
0
I'm saying that existing is a physical property of the universe and that not existing is not a physical property.
Well yes, this is where your biggest problem lies. I could say the same thing about an apple.
An apple is made of matter and energy, so since matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, you can't create or destroy my apple. My apple exists because it must exist, existing is a property of my apple. My apple has no beginning or end.
I have used physical property in order to directly stave off any ontological or metaphysical approach.
Well... it was a nice try.
these are physical and measurable qualities.
Problem of induction.
 
118
0
Well yes, this is where your biggest problem lies. I could say the same thing about an apple. An apple is made of matter and energy, so since matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, you can't create or destroy my apple. My apple exists because it must exist, existing is a property of my apple. My apple has no beginning or end.
Actually, you have just illustrated my point exactly. If you re-read above, I state the well-know scientific fact; "matter and energy are never created nor destroyed (just altered)." You are correct in saying your apple has no beginning or no end... though it wasn't always an apple. The particles/energy that make it up have changed states and forms many time throughout their existence... but they were never created nor destroyed. I'm not stating the universe only existed in one form exclusively, just that it was never created nor destroyed according to it's own laws of physics (which are a byproduct of it's physical nature).

Well... it was a nice try.
This is a forum for discussion and open thought. Your sarcasm doesn't further validate any additional point you were attempting to make... though it too was a nice try. ;)

Problem of induction.
Yes, the good old problem of induction... the ace in the hole inevitably pulled in an attempt to stifle creative thought/theory-building. If Einstein had worried about induction so much, there would be no theory of SR or GR. If Newton had been tripped up by the induction problem, he would never have induced his theory of gravity. If Maxwell had not been willing to make assumptions based on previous observations, then the Electric and Magnetic forces would still not have been unified into the Electromagnetic. There would be no scientific discoveries, for that matter, that had anything to do with inductive reasoning or the theorized relationships between sets of observations at all. Induction claims that we cannot assume to know any future events based on observations of the past. It also says, even the laws of physics could not be certain to behave the same in the future as they did in the past... meaning that these entire Physics Forums would be useless. For the sake of everyone's time here, we are assuming that this is not so...
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
"matter and energy are never created nor destroyed (just altered)." You are correct in saying your apple has no beginning or no end... though it wasn't always an apple.
This is what is called a category error. The apple does have a beginning and end. Because an apple is a biological thing. It may also be made up of matter and energy, but that is not the essential quality in an apple definition. (One can talk about apples without refering to matter/energy) Similarly, matter and energy exist in spacetime. So 'the universe' actually refers to something more than just matter and energy.

Equating apple with matter/energy is an error, just the same as equating matter/energy with the universe is an error. Its not about whether an apple is made up of matter/energy, the problem you are running into is a matter of definition, of how you categorize. Many problems in philosophy are of this nature.
I'm not stating the universe only existed in one form exclusively
It doesn't much matter, in order to talk scientifically about 'a universe' you would need multiple instances of universes in order to understand their properties. The fact that in physics, matter/energy operate based on certain rules is irrelevant, physics tells us for instance that many of the rules of physics break down at the high energies associated with the early universe, so the rules of the universe change. Many physicists agree that assuming multiple universes can exist, there is no requirement that the rules would be the same for every universe.
Your sarcasm doesn't further validate any additional point you were attempting to make
Making claims about what your argument does, when it does no such thing, doesn't really forward the discussion, either.
Yes, the good old problem of induction...
Dismissing the problems inherent in your position is not the same as addressing them in an open and thoughtful way.
If Einstein had worried about induction so much, there would be no theory of SR or GR.
This just shows you don't know much about the problem of induction. David Hume, who defined it as a problem, was an staunch empiricist, which means, he believed knowledge could only be derived through... observation. This was a radical departure from the philosophy of rationalism, which relied on logic to find knowledge. So claiming the problem is an attack on science is simply false.

Induction claims that we cannot assume to know any future events based on observations of the past.
Actually, induction is a form of reasoning that involves drawing conclusions about 'unobserved' phenomena, based on 'observed' phenomena. Future events are just one example of this. The 'problem of induction', as defined by Hume, states that inductive reasoning has no 'justification'. Hume never claimed we shouldn't use it, in fact, he stated very clearly we have no choice but to use it.

You might want to actually read up on Hume before you start making wild claims about how the problem of induction makes physics useless. Its really not what he said, nor what philosophers who understand the problem are likely to claim.
 
118
0
This is what is called a category error. The apple does have a beginning and end. Because an apple is a biological thing. It may also be made up of matter and energy, but that is not the essential quality in an apple definition. (One can talk about apples without refering to matter/energy) Similarly, matter and energy exist in spacetime. So 'the universe' actually refers to something more than just matter and energy.
No, actually the error is in your way of choosing to categorize the argument. You seem to lack a crucial understanding of my point entirely. You say an apple and the universe are separate entities, but I am referring to the most base forms/rule sets of the universe. An apple cannot exist outside of the universe... it is a direct byproduct of the physical laws and interactions of the universe. It is not a separate entity from the universe as you claim, but is instead a form of the universe itself. You seem to think an apple can exist without the universe... but this is not so. Also, spacetime is never created nor destroyed... again furthering my point.

Equating apple with matter/energy is an error, just the same as equating matter/energy with the universe is an error. Its not about whether an apple is made up of matter/energy, the problem you are running into is a matter of definition, of how you categorize. Many problems in philosophy are of this nature.
Actually, it is completely about what the apple is made of. The apple itself means nothing. As I stated above, there is no difference other than a state change between an apple an some other form in the universe... as Carl Sagan once said "We are made of star stuff."

It doesn't much matter, in order to talk scientifically about 'a universe' you would need multiple instances of universes in order to understand their properties. The fact that in physics, matter/energy operate based on certain rules is irrelevant, physics tells us for instance that many of the rules of physics break down at the high energies associated with the early universe, so the rules of the universe change. Many physicists agree that assuming multiple universes can exist, there is no requirement that the rules would be the same for every universe.
Yes, once again you have proven my point. You say you would need multiple instances of the universe to understand their properties... yet you also say the rules of the universe change. That is the multiple instances of the universe. The state of the universe is constantly altered. The same as the big bang, or the singularity of a black hole, or anything else that alters the universe itself. My point is, the universe is malleable and constantly changing... but it has never been created nor destroyed. Even the big bang only goes as far back as an infinitely dense quantum speck... science doesn't accurately speculate about anything before the big bang.

Making claims about what your argument does, when it does no such thing, doesn't really forward the discussion, either.
Actually, considering I started the thread, this entire conversation is propelled by my argument. It is only you that attempts to stifle the further analysis of it.

This just shows you don't know much about the problem of induction. David Hume, who defined it as a problem, was an staunch empiricist, which means, he believed knowledge could only be derived through... observation. This was a radical departure from the philosophy of rationalism, which relied on logic to find knowledge. So claiming the problem is an attack on science is simply false.
I think you are perhaps confused on the problem of induction yourself. Inductive reasoning is drawing conclusions from past observations... as I have said before. Newton INDUCED as opposed to DEDUCED his theory of gravity. He made assumptions about gravity based on previous observations. This is readily known. The problem of induction would have claimed that this would not be a reasonable approach... yet it was one of the most influential discoveries of mankind.

Actually, induction is a form of reasoning that involves drawing conclusions about 'unobserved' phenomena, based on 'observed' phenomena. Future events are just one example of this. The 'problem of induction', as defined by Hume, states that inductive reasoning has no 'justification'. Hume never claimed we shouldn't use it, in fact, he stated very clearly we have no choice but to use it.
I stated this definition of induction exactly in my old post. Also, my entire argument is that inductive reasoning DOES have justification... as in the many great scientific discoveries that utilized it to formulate their theories.

You might want to actually read up on Hume before you start making wild claims about how the problem of induction makes physics useless. Its really not what he said, nor what philosophers who understand the problem are likely to claim.
I am well acquainted with Hume's work. If you would stop putting word into my mouth it would also be helpful in having an open discussion. I never said induction makes physics useless... I said if every scientist got tripped up by induction, then many of the GREAT discoveries that utilized inductive reasoning would never have happened.
 
1,328
0
You say an apple and the universe are separate entities
No I did not. I said you were making a category error.
You said:
apple=matter/energy=universe

They are not equivalent concepts. They occupy different epistemological domains.

I don't go to the store to buy matter and energy. I can't eat a universe.

Also, spacetime is never created nor destroyed....
Well, that is your claim....
Carl Sagan once said "We are made of star stuff."
That doesn't mean human beings have the properties of stars or vice versa.
If it did, the earth would be a fireball, and stars could have bad breath.
Yes, once again you have proven my point. You say you would need multiple instances of the universe to understand their properties... yet you also say the rules of the universe change. That is the multiple instances of the universe.
Now you are making a claim about the nature of time. Which brings us back to induction.
My point is, the universe is malleable and constantly changing... but it has never been created nor destroyed.
Yes, that is your claim. I undestand this. I don't think you have shown it to be true.
science doesn't accurately speculate about anything before the big bang.
So how exactly do you know that the universe wasn't created?
It is only you that attempts to stifle the further analysis of it.
Uhm... ok.
The problem of induction would have claimed that this would not be a reasonable approach... yet it was one of the most influential discoveries of mankind.
No, induction is a form of reasoning, which is why it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning" [Broken]. Hume's description of the 'problem of induction' details the fact that using induction is not justified.
Also, my entire argument is that inductive reasoning DOES have justification... as in the many great scientific discoveries that utilized it to formulate their theories.
Except, this arguement relies on induction. You can't justify induction.... with induction, so science doesn't justify induction.

Bertrand Russel offered a good example.

A chicken has lived on a farm all its life.
And every day, the farmer brings food.
For the chicken's entire life, every day, farmer, food, farmer, food.
Using induction, its perfectly reasonable to assume that tomorrow the farmer will bring food.
Observation proves it.
The chicken can be confident about this, the chicken can know that it is true.
Until the day the farmer brings an axe.
And on that day the chicken learns the problem of induction.

I said if every scientist got tripped up by induction, then many of the GREAT discoveries that utilized inductive reasoning would never have happened.
Again, induction doesn't justify induction.
If you had solved the problem of induction, you would be very famous.
But feel free to continue trying... I'd hate to stifle you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
118
0
No I did not. I said you were making a category error.
You said:
apple=matter/energy=universe

They are not equivalent concepts. They occupy different epistemological domains.

I don't go to the store to buy matter and energy. I can't eat a universe.
No, this is not an error of epistemological concern. It is an error of what you are choosing to analyze vs. what I am talking about. You are making observations of the macroscopic nature of the universe. Describing the most base form of the universe requires a look at it's most basic form, which has thus far shown itself to be the quantum scale (and theoretically even smaller if you believe in ideas such as string theory). The humans and stars and even the apple are all comprised of the exact same particles (bosons, fermions, etc.) and subject to interactions of the exact same four forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravity) they just exist in different arrangements. You seem concerned with the difference between a sand castle vs. a sandstorm... while I am concerned with the sand itself. Of course that's not a perfect analogy, but you get my point. And yes... you CAN eat the universe. The 'universe' is simply a blanket statement for everything that exists.

Well, that is your claim....
Yes, that is why this is a philosophical forum.

That doesn't mean human beings have the properties of stars or vice versa.
If it did, the earth would be a fireball, and stars could have bad breath.
As stated above, your observation of macroscopic properties is irrelevant as they are all different byproducts of the exact same laws of physics. The physics itself is the true nature of the universe. It is the most basic rule set that everything can be defined by.

So how exactly do you know that the universe wasn't created?
I never claimed to know anything for fact... just as you don't know the universe was created for a fact. But this is a discussion about that subject. When dealing with subjects of this complexity, scientist invoke Occam's Razor, meaning that they take the path of least complexity if different possible scenarios present themselves. To speculate on what came before the universe (whether it was created, or was a completely different set of physical laws) is a complete guess at our current scientific state. There are infinite possibilities about how the universe could have come about, and to conjecture about them would be a complete shot in the dark that no amount of reasoning, or scientific evidence could confirm or deny.

No, induction is a form of reasoning, which is why it is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning" [Broken]. Hume's description of the 'problem of induction' details the fact that using induction is not justified.
Yes, I have defined induction exactly as this definition two separate times now. I don't understand why you keep explaining to me what I have already stated I know to be true. I understand that Hume thought it was not justified, but I will explain how I think it is justifiable...

Bertrand Russel offered a good example.

A chicken has lived on a farm all its life.
And every day, the farmer brings food.
For the chicken's entire life, every day, farmer, food, farmer, food.
Using induction, its perfectly reasonable to assume that tomorrow the farmer will bring food.
Observation proves it.
The chicken can be confident about this, the chicken can know that it is true.
Until the day the farmer brings an axe.
And on that day the chicken learns the problem of induction.
Yes, well a chicken is a bad example because a chicken cannot reason on the heightened level we are discussing. But let's take your scenario and apply it to a reasonable man. Induction CAN be justified, because purely through use of inductive reasoning, a man can look at past observations and make a conclusion that past observations don't always lead to correct future assumptions. Though he can become used to getting the food everyday, it would be no surprise to him if one day the food stopped coming because he would have observed many scenarios in his life where past observations had failed to produce predictable results. It is justified because it comes with the awareness that it is not infallible, but it none the less is a great tool when used with that understanding.

Again, induction doesn't justify induction.
If you had solved the problem of induction, you would be very famous.
But feel free to continue trying... I'd hate to stifle you.
The problem of induction cannot be solved as it is not that type of problem, it is a problem in the sense that it is a tool with inherent limitations. But as I demonstrated above, these limitations can be fully understood, thus providing a way to effectively use the tool to find wonderful new discoveries. I take the Newton example again. Newton induced his theory of Gravity, arguably the most important scientific discovery of the modern era. Yet it cannot prove that tomorrow the laws of physics won't up and change completely rendering his discoveries obsolete. But, until that time comes (if ever) it has been responsible for an intellectual, scientific and technological boom for all of humanity. The use of inductive reasoning has had very real consequences and therefore is fully justified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,328
0
while I am concerned with the sand itself.
Then you are not talking about the universe.
And yes... you CAN eat the universe. The 'universe' is simply a blanket statement for everything that exists.
I'm pretty sure i can't, but I'd love to watch you try.
The physics itself is the true nature of the universe.
If that were true, it would explain dark matter and dark energy, the two things that arguably make up most of the known universe.
I never claimed to know anything for fact
"The Universe exists because it has to"
When dealing with subjects of this complexity, scientist invoke Occam's Razor...
Occam's razor is a guess. Its about what is likely, not what must be.
Yes, I have defined induction exactly as this definition two separate times now.
And yet you still don't seem to understand what it means. Which is pretty impressive really. I have found people usually figure it out when presented with Russel's chicken example. And yet you still seem not to get it.
Yes, well a chicken is a bad example because a chicken cannot reason on the heightened level we are discussing.
It is either induction or it isn't. Induction is not complicated, although it can be hard for some to understand.
It is justified because it comes with the awareness that it is not infallible, but it none the less is a great tool when used with that understanding.
You're using 'justified' in a very loose and non-philosophical way.... which is why you are missing the point. Hume never said we shouldn't use induction. He considered it very useful.
The use of inductive reasoning has had very real consequences and therefore is fully justified.
Yes it has real consequences, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes I win at games of chance, sometimes I don't. Winning doesn't mean betting on red was justified.
 
118
0
Then you are not talking about the universe.
Yes, in fact, I am. As I stated, the sand is an imperfect analogy, but I thought you were able to make the connection. Not so I see. Let me rephrase this... I am describing the universe by it's base elements, on the quantum and microscopic levels, because the macroscopic reality is simply a byproduct of those.

I'm pretty sure i can't, but I'd love to watch you try.
The apple is made up of the same fermions and bosons that are found everywhere... so, feel free to watch.

If that were true, it would explain dark matter and dark energy, the two things that arguably make up most of the known universe.
Scientists are only beginning to understand dark matter and dark energy, they are still mostly mysteries. But I can tell you one thing for sure.. they are part of the physical laws of the universe.

"The Universe exists because it has to"
Yes, this is the title of my thread on a site called Physics Forums, under the philosophical section... meant for initiating conversation and open thought. The fact that you assume anything other than that seems to be your own problem not mine.

Occam's razor is a guess. Its about what is likely, not what must be.
No, Occam's Razor is not a guess, it is the principle that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity. It's the very opposite of random guessing actually, as it tries to eliminate unnecessary complexities.

And yet you still don't seem to understand what it means. Which is pretty impressive really. I have found people usually figure it out when presented with Russel's chicken example. And yet you still seem not to get it.
If these are the types of comments I am going to expect from an "open-minded philosopher", then I would rather we ceased this discussion. I have nothing I can learn from you because all you are concerned with is winning an argument, as opposed to being correct, or pursuing an open discussion. Feel free to no longer comment, unless you attempt it in a progressive way.

It is either induction or it isn't. Induction is not complicated, although it can be hard for some to understand.
Apparently, as you seem not to grasp it.

You're using 'justified' in a very loose and non-philosophical way.... which is why you are missing the point. Hume never said we shouldn't use induction. He considered it very useful.
I... know... this will be the 3rd time that I have to tell you that I understand Hume's stance on induction. Please stop saying the same thing over and over. Either read my post and disagree with it, or engage in open discussion.

Yes it has real consequences, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes I win at games of chance, sometimes I don't. Winning doesn't mean betting on red was justified.
It is justified if you are expecting an outcome from the betting as opposed to a pre-determined outcome. You are assuming that winning is the only favorable outcome. This is a bad analogy, because you are already favoring a result. When Newton induced gravity, he did not favor any outcome over another. He simply took what he could from past observations and induced what became his theory. He didn't win or lose. He simply created an idea that, in the future, could very well be debunked should the laws of physics change completely or if we discover a part of the universe which has alternate laws of physics. I wouldn't necessarily say that Newton won, all he did was produce an outcome. But his outcome has had many beneficial effects for humanity thus far.
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
because the macroscopic reality is simply a byproduct of those.
Thats was is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism" [Broken].
The apple is made up of the same fermions and bosons that are found everywhere... so, feel free to watch.
No, you said you could eat a universe, which means, all the fermions and bosons that exist.
See, this is the problem when you equivocate things, it tend to become nonsensical.
Scientists are only beginning to understand dark matter and dark energy, they are still mostly mysteries. But I can tell you one thing for sure.. they are part of the physical laws of the universe.
They are not part of the physical laws yet.
Yes, this is the title of my thread on a site called Physics Forums, under the philosophical section... meant for initiating conversation and open thought. The fact that you assume anything other than that seems to be your own problem not mine.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying you are wrong, whether you believe what you are saying or not, really doesn't matter to me.
No, Occam's Razor is not a guess, it is the principle that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity. It's the very opposite of random guessing actually, as it tries to eliminate unnecessary complexities.
Where did I say random?? Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Trying to win are we?
If these are the types of comments I am going to expect from an "open-minded philosopher", then I would rather we ceased this discussion. I have nothing I can learn from you because all you are concerned with is winning an argument, as opposed to being correct, or pursuing an open discussion. Feel free to no longer comment, unless you attempt it in a progressive way.
Your argument fails, so you disown it, and attack the person, not the arguement. Nice.
Either read my post and disagree with it, or engage in open discussion.
I've told you why you are wrong already.
But his outcome has had many beneficial effects for humanity thus far.
Whether the outcome is favorable is irrelevant.

All of the accomplishments of science are irrelevant to the problem of induction.
Induction doesn't justify induction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
118
0
No, you said you could eat a universe, which means, all the fermions and bosons that exist.
See, this is the problem when you equivocate things, it tend to become nonsensical.
No, I said the apple is no different from anything else in the universe, and by eating the apple you are eating the universe. The same as if I said I was eating bread when I was eating a slice of the whole loaf. I never once said eating the whole universe, there you go once again manipulating words.

They are not part of the physical laws yet.
Just because man hasn't discovered them doesn't mean they aren't constantly affecting us by making up about 96% of the known universe. Let me quote something you yourself said on another thread, maybe you'll listen to yourself since you won't listen to me: "You cannot 'prove' that something doesn't exist, simply by saying you've never seen it. You cannot 'prove' that something unseen exists based on what you can see."

On that note: Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven to exist yet. They are speculations based on observations... their nature is inductive. You of all people should never have brought this up as an argument. When you chose to use them to try to excoriate my theory, you openly contradicted your 'belief' in the problem of induction. Someone that truly believed what you claimed would never have treated the concepts of dark matter and dark energy as concrete arguments to debunk an idea.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying you are wrong, whether you believe what you are saying or not, really doesn't matter to me.
First off, this is a philosophy forum, open to new ideas. Secondly, you have not proven me wrong in any way despite what you assume to know. Thirdly, likewise, what you believe doesn't matter to me either.

Where did I say random?? Now who is putting words in whose mouth? Trying to win are we?
By saying Occam's Razor is a guess you are 100% wrong. Occam's razor is an attempt to reduce error if a guess is made... in fact it's the only thing preventing pure guesswork. So for you to say it's a guess is not only incorrect, but could only mean the guess was random in nature. I'm flattered you would like to blame me for this error, but unfortunately it's only you that put these incorrect words into your own mouth, regardless of what you knew was implied by your statement or not.

Your argument fails, so you disown it, and attack the person, not the arguement. Nice.
As stated above, my argument has not failed in any way, at least not any way in which you have shown. The only thing that has failed is your desire to communicate. You'll note, it is me that started a thread to discuss an idea, and you that has come here attempting to do nothing but debunk it in an aggressive way, without success might I add.

I've told you why you are wrong already.
Well, I am telling you, you are wrong. But just because I say that doesn't legitimize it does it?

Whether the outcome is favorable is irrelevant.
That's what I said exactly.... Do you even read my posts? I literally said: "This is a bad analogy, because you are already favoring a result. When Newton induced gravity, he did not favor any outcome over another"

Maybe if you spent more time reading my responses and less time thinking of ways to attack them, you wouldn't repeat things that have already been addressed so much.

All of the accomplishments of science are irrelevant to the problem of induction.
Induction doesn't justify induction.
Once again, I will quote an earlier text of mine which you seemed to have missed... yet again: "The problem of induction cannot be solved as it is not that type of problem, it is a problem in the sense that it is a tool with inherent limitations... these limitations can be fully understood, thus providing a way to effectively use the tool to find wonderful new discoveries."

I give you the courtesy of reading your entire post and responding accordingly. Please return that courtesy.
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
No, I said the apple is no different from anything else in the universe, and by eating the apple you are eating the universe. The same as if I said I was eating bread when I was eating a slice of the whole loaf.
The universe, even by your own definition is everything, so it is the whole loaf.
And yes... you CAN eat the universe. The 'universe' is simply a blanket statement for everything that exists.
So you can eat 'everything that exists'. Like I said, I'd like to see you eat everything that exists.

matter/energy is not equivalent to the universe, any more than a slice of bread is.
Just because man hasn't discovered
If they haven't been discovered yet, you can't rationally claim it exists. You can only say you think they might, and say why.
They are speculations based on observations... their nature is inductive.
That is NOT what inductive means.

An inductive argument about matter would be: the copper samples I have examined conduct electricity, therefore all copper conducts electricity.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are different. It is more of a 'deduction' issue.

If our understanding of gravity is true, a galaxy requires x amount of mass, or it will fly apart.
But we don't observe x amount, we observe much much less mass.
So either our premise, about the nature of gravity, is wrong, or there is more mass hiding out there somewhere; dark matter

If our understanding of gravity is true, the expansion of the universe should be slowing.
But we don't observe slowed expansion, we observe an accelerated expansion.
So either our premise, about the nature of gravity, is wrong, or there is some other force causing the universe to expand; dark energy.

In both cases, the names we give these phenomena are unimportant. Dark matter might not be matter at all.
you openly contradicted your 'belief' in the problem of induction.
I did no such thing. Even if dark matter was arrived at by inductive reasoning, the fact induction can't be justified doesn't limit me from using it. As Hume said, we can't avoid using it.
Someone that truly believed what you claimed would never...
And yet I did, so maybe you are wrong about what I believe.
Which I have been saying all along by the way.
Secondly, you have not proven me wrong in any way
True, Hume proved you wrong long ago.
what you believe doesn't matter to me either.
Which may be why your reading comprehension is so poor.
Occam's razor is an attempt to reduce error if a guess is made... in fact it's the only thing preventing pure guesswork.
It is still a guess.
So for you to say it's a guess is not only incorrect, but could only mean the guess was random in nature.
Never heard of an educated guess?? I never qualified it. You assumed I meant random. You are the one who is trying to put words in other peoples mouths. Not me.
I literally said: "This is a bad analogy, because you are already favoring a result. When Newton induced gravity, he did not favor any outcome over another"
And it wouldn't have mattered if he did. Being right doesn't justify induction, any more than being wrong impugns induction.

Maybe if you spent more time reading...
Pot Kettle Black.
"The problem of induction cannot be solved as it is not that type of problem, it is a problem in the sense that it is a tool with inherent limitations... these limitations can be fully understood, thus providing a way to effectively use the tool to find wonderful new discoveries."
The fact you can use induction doesn't mean you are justified in using it.
 
Last edited:
782
1
so far, I agree with JD's logic
 

Pythagorean

Gold Member
4,133
253
Evolver, your proposal reminds me a lot of the anthropomorphic principle. It's not very satisfactory (especially to philosophers) but it may hold some truth. Getting at that truth has shown to be very difficult though, hasn't it?

Evolver + JoeDawg:

At one point, I think you guys are arguing from different definitions of physics. JoeDawg is using the academic definition of physics: the study of the physical world. Meanwhile, Evolver is talking about the actual physics that are independent of physicist's observations (but that physicist's are able to approximate with better and better accuracy as the centuries go by). Of course, you'll have assume with me that we're not brains in vats to see this viewpoint clearly.
 
118
0
The universe, even by your own definition is everything, so it is the whole loaf.
I said the universe is a blanket statement for everything that exists. Since the apple exists, it is then considered part of the universe. I never said the apple was the entire universe, I merely said the apple is something that exists and is made up of the same elementary particles as everything else in the universe. You are twisting my argument.

So you can eat 'everything that exists'. Like I said, I'd like to see you eat everything that exists.

matter/energy is not equivalent to the universe, any more than a slice of bread is.
The bread cannot exist outside of the universe. They are innately inseparable.

If they haven't been discovered yet, you can't rationally claim it exists. You can only say you think they might, and say why.
We see effects occurring and have no answer for them. There is clearly some element of the universe we have not properly understood. When the ancient Egyptians thought the Sun was a God flying about in the sky, it didn't change the fact that the Sun held the Earth within it's gravitational field and cast high energy neutrons onto it's surface.

That is NOT what inductive means.

An inductive argument about matter would be: the copper samples I have examined conduct electricity, therefore all copper conducts electricity.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are different. It is more of a 'deduction' issue.

If our understanding of gravity is true, a galaxy requires x amount of mass, or it will fly apart.
But we don't observe x amount, we observe much much less mass.
So either our premise, about the nature of gravity, is wrong, or there is more mass hiding out there somewhere; dark matter

If our understanding of gravity is true, the expansion of the universe should be slowing.
But we don't observe slowed expansion, we observe an accelerated expansion.
So either our premise, about the nature of gravity, is wrong, or there is some other force causing the universe to expand; dark energy.

In both cases, the names we give these phenomena are unimportant. Dark matter might not be matter at all.
That is what inductive means. Inductive reasoning is creating general principles based on past observations to speculate about unknown events... and that's exactly what dark matter/energy are. Scientists observe that there are unknown forces acting on the physical universe, therefore they have theorized two hypothetical candidates: dark matter and dark energy. You're right, they may not be responsible for the forces... but the current ideas of them are more literal than you claim. Scientists treat dark matter as a form of matter invisible to electromagnetic radiation which has gravitational properties. Dark energy is treated as a form of energy that interacts with gravity and photons and hastens the expansion of the universe. These ideas were induced... They are general principles that were created, based on previous observations of the universe, in order to speculate about it's unknown events.

I did no such thing. Even if dark matter was arrived at by inductive reasoning, the fact induction can't be justified doesn't limit me from using it. As Hume said, we can't avoid using it.
Since Hume said we can't avoid using it, then stop bringing it up as an attempted counter argument. If it's unavoidable then it doesn't really matter if it's justified or not does it? In fact, the fact that it can't be avoided would appear to make it justified, as it is an attribute seemingly inseparable from the process of theory building.

And yet I did, so maybe you are wrong about what I believe.
Which I have been saying all along by the way.
And you are wrong about what I believe... this doesn't solve anything.

True, Hume proved you wrong long ago.
Rather, it seems he has proved you wrong.

Which may be why your reading comprehension is so poor.
This makes absolutely no sense in the context of this argument. Nice attack though.

Never heard of an educated guess?? I never qualified it. You assumed I meant random. You are the one who is trying to put words in other peoples mouths. Not me.
Occam's Razor is not a guess of any kind. It's a principle that is followed to remove unneeded complexities when multiple, competing hypotheses present themselves. When you call it a guess, you are incorrect.

And it wouldn't have mattered if he did. Being right doesn't justify induction, any more than being wrong impugns induction.
I'm saying this... I've said it three times now. I am the one that said you were making an erroneous argument with the 'losing vs. winning while betting on red' analogy, because you were making induction about losing vs. winning. It was you that did this, not me.

The fact you can use induction doesn't mean you ae justified in using it.
As I said above, if induction is unavoidable, justification is not really an issue.
 
Last edited:
118
0
Evolver, your proposal reminds me a lot of the anthropomorphic principle. It's not very satisfactory (especially to philosophers) but it may hold some truth. Getting at that truth has shown to be very difficult though, hasn't it?

Evolver + JoeDawg:

At one point, I think you guys are arguing from different definitions of physics. JoeDawg is using the academic definition of physics: the study of the physical world. Meanwhile, Evolver is talking about the actual physics that are independent of physicist's observations (but that physicist's are able to approximate with better and better accuracy as the centuries go by). Of course, you'll have assume with me that we're not brains in vats to see this viewpoint clearly.
Yes, my argument does have elements of the anthropic principle (not to be confused with non-humans endowed with human-like qualities described as anthropomorphic :smile: ). But even then, they are more elements of the weak anthropic principle as opposed to the anthropic principle.

You are right though, assuming there is no Solipsism or Brain-in-a-vat scenarios, I agree that JoeDawg and myself are approaching this discussion from different angles.
 
Last edited:

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
JoeDawg is doing a pretty good job of knocking down every pin Evolver sets up, and he's doing it pretty patiently and rationally.

Evolver, I have got to say your premise is pretty textbook circular.

All your claims in your opening post lead to, not one, but two possible outcomes:
1] the universe exists, and has all these physical properties
OR
2] the universe does NOT exist and therefore there are no physical properties to be had - or to be violated


"In actuality, there is no such thing as 'nothing', and that is a physical property of the universe itself. Even in 'empty' space there are a slew of virtual particles bubbling about as well as various forces interacting with each other. Since matter and energy are never created nor destroyed (simply altered), and the universe is made of matter and energy..."

These are all properties of the universe. If there is no universe, none of these properties are violated either.

So, both possibilities are valid. Thus, you have not demonstrated it must exist.
 
124
0
Well yes, this is where your biggest problem lies. I could say the same thing about an apple.
An apple is made of matter and energy, so since matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, you can't create or destroy my apple. My apple exists because it must exist, existing is a property of my apple. My apple has no beginning or end.
The matter/energy of the apple was never created and can never be destroyed, but the thing is, it was not and will not stay an apple.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,253
1,857
and will not stay an apple.
Well, unless it is part of a Christmas cake. In which case, it will survive the heat-death of the universe.
 
118
0
JoeDawg is doing a pretty good job of knocking down every pin Evolver sets up, and he's doing it pretty patiently and rationally.

Evolver, I have got to say your premise is pretty textbook circular.

All your claims in your opening post lead to, not one, but two possible outcomes:
1] the universe exists, and has all these physical properties
OR
2] the universe does NOT exist and therefore there are no physical properties to be had - or to be violated


"In actuality, there is no such thing as 'nothing', and that is a physical property of the universe itself. Even in 'empty' space there are a slew of virtual particles bubbling about as well as various forces interacting with each other. Since matter and energy are never created nor destroyed (simply altered), and the universe is made of matter and energy..."

These are all properties of the universe. If there is no universe, none of these properties are violated either.

So, both possibilities are valid. Thus, you have not demonstrated it must exist.
I've observed yours and JoeDawg's interactions on other threads, and you have a knack for teaming up and being buddy-buddy regardless of topic... so I have to take your criticisms with a grain of salt. Though I will still engage in an open conversation with you because you do offer insightful arguments:

First off, I would find it difficult to believe that there would be interacting forces, as I have stated, if the universe did not exist. Secondly, we could not observe the universe if it did not exist. There is a diluted form of the anthropic principle known as the weak anthropic principle. It doesn't make all the wild speculations the strong anthropic principle does, but it lends one truism worth note: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist. Lastly, I have clearly stated that not existing is not a possibility, because you can't concretely prove something doesn't exist (all you can do is conjecture). I think this, in no way, leads to the latter assumption you have made about my proposal.
 
Last edited:
118
0
Well, unless it is part of a Christmas cake. In which case, it will survive the heat-death of the universe.
I realize this is a joke (and a rather funny one at that :smile:) but it does illustrate a good point I am trying to make:

Referring to an entropic evolution of the universe does not mean matter/energy will be created or destroyed. It will simply exist in another state. It is a scientific fact that matter/energy are never created or destroyed. How, then, could you assume that the matter/energy that exists today could have ever been created or will ever be destroyed?
 
Last edited:
1,328
0
I've observed yours and JoeDawg's interactions on other threads, and you have a knack for teaming up and being buddy-buddy regardless of topic
LOL. Yes, its a mighty conspiracy to stifle you.

One last time.

3 men go into a casino.
There names are: JD, Revolver, and Kenny Rogers.

They sit down at a roulette table.
(For the purposes of simplicity the men can only bet on RED or BLACK)
The woman spinning the wheel is very pretty.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
But none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. But this time, the Pit Boss comes by and tells the men, if they aren't going to bet they have to leave.

Revolver takes all his money and bets RED
Kenny takes all his money and bets BLACK
JD gets up and leaves.

Why?

Revolver used induction, he saw that RED came up consistently and decided that this was the best bet.
Kenny Rogers used reverse-induction, he saw that RED came up 3 times and decided that it was unlikely it would come up 4 times in a row.
JD recognized that each spin had a 50/50 chance of being RED or BLACK, and therefore decided he wasn't justified in betting on either.

Now, some may object, 'but the universe is not random'. The problem is, how do we know this?? Well, up until now, the universe has been pretty consistent. But that is no different from getting a hundred or a thousand REDs in a row. And if the universe is random, its perfectly possible you could get a million REDs in a row, totally randomly.

So it doesn't really matter how many REDs you get a row, betting on one or the other is not justified, regardless of the fact, that in this scenario, either Kenny or Revolver just won some money.
 
118
0
LOL. Yes, its a mighty conspiracy to stifle you.

One last time.

3 men go into a casino.
There names are: JD, Revolver, and Kenny Rogers.

They sit down at a roulette table.
(For the purposes of simplicity the men can only bet on RED or BLACK)
The woman spinning the wheel is very pretty.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
But none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. The woman spins the wheel anyway.

RED WINS.

Pretty Woman: Place your bets!
Again, none of the men bets. But this time, the Pit Boss comes by and tells the men, if they aren't going to bet they have to leave.

Revolver takes all his money and bets RED
Kenny takes all his money and bets BLACK
JD gets up and leaves.

Why?

Revolver used induction, he saw that RED came up consistently and decided that this was the best bet.
Kenny Rogers used reverse-induction, he saw that RED came up 3 times and decided that it was unlikely it would come up 4 times in a row.
JD recognized that each spin had a 50/50 chance of being RED or BLACK, and therefore decided he wasn't justified in betting on either.

Now, some may object, 'but the universe is not random'. The problem is, how do we know this?? Well, up until now, the universe has been pretty consistent. But that is no different from getting a hundred or a thousand REDs in a row. And if the universe is random, its perfectly possible you could get a million REDs in a row, totally randomly.

So it doesn't really matter how many REDs you get a row, betting on one or the other is not justified, regardless of the fact, that in this scenario, either Kenny or Revolver just won some money.
I whole-heartedly agree with this statement... this is a much finer example than the first one you made.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: The Universe Exists Because It Has To

Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
12K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top