A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Then, the O.P., in informing us that because the first thing doesn't have a cause, it can't be explained, assumes a reality in which things can't be self-explanatory. If such a reality is considered a self-explanatory thing, the proof fails, and if it isn't, the proof is unfounded.

In 3 and 3a and 5 and 5a the O.P. tells us that the reason the first thing can't be explained is that it can't have a prior cause. So it gives us a universal law that things can't be explained if they don't have prior causes.Do you agree that the law is necessary to nano's proof and that he has made it clear that it would apply to any first thing (including laws themselves, which are suggested as possible first things)?Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Whether you regard it as a law or a self-explanatory truth, a reality which includes it is one necessary thing required by the O.P.I'm not arguing that that particular reality is actually necessary, just that the O.P. is self-defeating if it assumes it.Nano needs to establish a proof that nothing could ever be explained by necessity, while avoiding the assumption that a reality in which his logic works is a necessary thing.Rather him than me.

Thanks for the explanation.If the O.P. is defining explanation in the way you did, he could have made it clearer. As the universe (meaning what's universal) encompasses everything, it cannot be explained by a prior cause is better than as the universe encompasses everything, it cannot be explained.Then we could thank nano for stating the obvious, and move on.As it is, many people will have taken "explained" in the broader sense, which would include your interesting explanation of a necessary truth above (I'll add logic and truth to reality and existence in my list of necessary entities). In this sense, that the universe could never be understood, he doesn't have a proof. You offered what the O.P. needs when you attempted a proof against necessity, which would require the existence of nothing as a possible "world". A non world without truth, logic and the existence of reality.

I understand your O.P very well. Of course there could be a thing that has always been there, and there also could be a number of things that have always been there. The point about nothingness is that if it could really be, then no single thing could ever be explained as being necessarily there. The reason your proof is obvious is that it's just saying that if something didn't have anything before it, then it can't be explained by a prior cause. However, because that's not the only way to explain things, you don't actually have a proof that the universe is inexplicable. If true nothingness could be (where? nowhere?) and if you could establish that, then you could rule out necessity as an explanation. That's what your O.P. needs.That's why I suggested a reality in which the type of logic you're using works as being one of the necessary first things. If reality has to be, then it requires no causal explanation.So, could non-reality exist? Could non-existence be real? If not, we can put reality and existence as two explained (by necessity) things that have no prior cause and are always there.I can add some others as well, and if you want me to build our type of space time from there, I'll do it.

I think you're still missing the point about necessity. If an entity has to exist, then it requires no causal explanation. You're also stuck on one first thing. If one thing can exist without a prior cause, many can. Time might be one of them, and it doesn't exist in isolation, so there are still more before the kind of linear time cause and effect process we experience. I'm not describing the start of something here. These things, if necessary, would always be.If a "world" of pure nothingness is impossible, there must be some things that don't require causal explanations.

The answer is because it has to exist. The universe is "somethingness". The only alternative is nothingness, which can't exist. Show that nothingness could exist, and you've shown that the universe isn't necessarily always there in some form.

I'm wondering how long it will take you to realise that things that have always existed don't have an origin to explain. The clue is in the word "always".I'm also wondering when you'll look up the word "explanation" and find out that explanations do not have to relate to prior causes.Explain:Why do cars have wheels?
Why is it impossible for pigs to fly?
Why does 3+3=6?
Why isn't China in North America?
Why can't someone be in two places at once?
Why is there something (the universe) rather than nothing?Do you see what I mean?

1) The universe is something
2) The universe encompasses all other things
3) Therefore, it cannot have an external cause
4) The universe exists
5) Therefore, the universe does not require an external cause in order to exist.
6) Therefore, an external cause isn't required in any explanation of the universe.The first three are your proof.The following question demands an explanation.Q. Why is there a universe?A. A universe would necessarily exist in all possible realities, because there has to be at least one thing to be real.If X doesn't require Y in order to exist, the existence of X can be explained without reference to Y.

Ask Nano to explain why it is possible.That's what needs to be positively demonstrated in order to make the claim in the O.P.You'll have to get him to understand the point first.Edited by bluegenes, : I'd say possible realities require existence, which requires at least one thing.

You would need to demonstrate that your logic can exist in the absence of existence and describe the non-place that it non-exists in.How is a non-existent reality a possible one? Are you suggesting that something that necessarily doesn't require a cause requires a causal explanation?And are you suggesting that a claim that the universe cannot be explained is proven if no-one can currently explain it?

How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible?

Is reality a thing?

In which case, it's thing dependent, and the same for existence if we view it as a state of things rather than a thing. Pure nothingness cannot be real and cannot exist without contradiction.Not only does at least one thing exist without prior cause, as in the O.P. but at least one thing must necessarily exist in all "possible worlds".Those that necessarily cannot have the qualities of reality and existence are in the set of impossible worlds.

I thought that's what you were trying to do. I'm happy with it as a concept, just as we're both happy with unicorns. No.