## Illogical part of universe

3

1

This question is based on many assumptions:

1. That since universe could not appear out of itself and could not be created by someone there has to be a other part of 'universe' (I am not sure if universe is the right word to use here but lets say that this is where our universe came from).
2. That other part is 'illogical' at least in rule that it allows things to appear out of nowhere.
3. Logic appears only in space-time (logic is based on axioms that do not require proof - they came from observing events happening in time, therefore time and logic can be considered as inseparable and logic to be seen as part or by-product of time. When I am talking about axioms I am not limiting myself to only Peano Axioms but to any axioms that are used, as they all have been 'invented' by living people observing space-time.).
4. Let's consider that each additional dimension like time (this is again speculation but for the sake of argument lets consider dimension as layer or sub-part or whole system we call universe) adds some additional rules to the table, like time adds events in space that follow rules of logic for example, or height, width and length bring volume, and width and length surface.
5. Removing dimensions in universe takes things that dimensions bring like events, volume out of the universe.
6. At last dimension one should end up with dot.
7. What is left after taking all dimensions and last one off should be that part where all our universe came from.

Is there a method that by reducing parts (dimensions and rules that they bring) one could boil down so he would obtain some information about 'illogical' part of universe, the one that universe supposedly came from?

I do understand that this is not a very well phrased question, I have edited it already and will try do work on it more, please leave comments and I will try to improve on this post to the best of my ability.

2Could you explain what you mean by "logic appears only in space-time"? – Hunan Rostomyan – 2014-05-09T08:32:31.733

@HunanRostomyan logic is based on axioms that do not require proof and came from observing things happening in time, therefore they can be considered as inseparable (time and logic) and logic seen as part or by-product of time. – Matas Vaitkevicius – 2014-05-09T08:40:39.510

1I'm sorry; I just can't make sense of the question. I hope I'm alone in that. Bits and pieces of it made sense, but overall, very hard to parse. (Asking questions is very hard. I know you're trying to do a good job at it. I hope you're able to polish this to a point where even I can understand it. Best of luck.) – Hunan Rostomyan – 2014-05-09T08:52:21.330

@HunanRostomyan could you please point me to the parts of question that do not 'connect' or are ambiguous, I will try to improve on it. – Matas Vaitkevicius – 2014-05-09T09:01:32.307

2Would you by any chance be interested in discussing in a chatroom what you're trying to get answered? (I don't want to populate this place with more comments.) I'll be in room The Symposium, if you want to discuss it. – Hunan Rostomyan – 2014-05-09T09:07:59.740

Good post and phrasing is fine, perhaps after edit. This dot part is what most religions and thinkers call the ONE, the idea that everything is just one thing. – Asphir Dom – 2014-05-09T11:58:23.723

4

1 seems wrong. Looking at the original thread, it seems to me that the error was ins supposing there was an object the universe such that it was the set of all things. The original argument argued that either (i) the universe caused itself or (ii) it was caused by something else. Not (i) because a thing can't be the cause of itself. But not (ii) either, because if this other thing would have had to not be part of the universe, but by definition everything is part of the universe. So options (i) and (ii) look like the only two possibilities, but we also see that neither of them can be true, because they both contain contradictions. Hence, the original poster concludes that the universe must have popped into existence out of nothingness. There's several problems with this argument. At least one problem is that creation ex nihilo isn't the only conclusion compatible with the falsity of (i) and (ii). For instance, the universe might have been eternal.

But there's another real problem with that original argument, which breeds a lot of confusion. This second problem is that the universe is not a real, concrete object, rather it is an abstraction, like numbers or sets. Think of it this way. Imagine I have two apples on the table. Now because there are two apples, it is true that there is a set of the apples on the table. I can give that set a name, I can tell you how many members it has, and so on. But the set of the apples doesn't have a cause--you don't have to push or pull on any matter to make a set exist, the way you have to exert some force to get a statue, or a baby to exist. Abstract objects are strange in that way.

So too, the universe began to exist when the first real concrete object began to exist, just like the set of the apples began to exist when the apples were put on the table. There is still a problem--what caused the first concrete object to exist?--but now we don't have the strange apparent contradiction between (i) and (ii).

Clearing up this confusion might help making sense of some of what puzzles you in your other points. For instance, in 3 you say "Logic appears only in space-time (logic is based on axioms that do not require proof - they came from observing events happening in time, therefore time and logic can be considered as inseparable and logic to be seen as part or by-product of time." This doesn't follow. The fact that the universe does not contain contradictions is an a priori metaphysical truth. The fact that we learn logic as adults, that our knowledge of it is based on experience, etc. doesn't not show that logic itself is somehow based on experience or that it is subject to the laws of physics, etc.

I don't know what to say about the last three points except that you seem to be thinking of "dimensions" along a spatial metaphor. A two dimensional figure looks like a line from the third dimensional perspective orthogonal to the first two dimensions. And you're then inferring that this process could be iterated higher and higher until we somehow consider the whole universe from some absolute perspective. But it isn't clear that this is possible. Time is a "dimension" in the sense that many formulae in physics include a parameter to measure change over time, but it wouldn't follow that somehow it is possible (for some mind, even a nonhuman mind) to adopt some fourth-dimensional perspective orthogonal to the three dimensions of space, let alone that there would be some fifth-dimensional perspective orthogonal to that and so on.

I hope this helps clarify your thinking on these difficult, important issues.

Summarize it in 'one' word. – Asphir Dom – 2014-05-09T16:28:50.813

Nice 'baby' analogy – iGbanam – 2014-05-20T21:56:47.970