A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

How does it follow that an event with no cause has no explanation?

Because explaining it would be the same as saying what caused it?

However, the answer might be ‘There is no alternative to there being something’.

Ooh, ooh, I though of an alternative: there not being anything. That would work.

Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms. But how? It could not involve a state where there was some x for which P(x) and ~P(x), because there would not, in fact, be some x.

To prove that the universe 'Cannot Be Explained' therefore, means proving no necessary entities exist.

I thought I just did that.

Here is the proof FOR necessary entities Imagine a world where there are only contingent entities. Since all entities are explained in terms of other entities, this implies either an infinite regression or a circularity of causation. Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary. A necessary entity contradicts the statement there are only contingent entities. Therefore there cannot be contingent only entities

Imagine a world were there were no entities. Then there would not be any contingent entities, so there would be no need of necessary entities to explain them.

Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary.

Not if you could have either: but in any case their necessity is in fact contingent. What you're doing is along the lines of: "Here is a contingent triangle. A triangle necessarily has three sides. Therefore its sides are necessary objects." Well, not if the triangle is contingent: in that case it could have not existed and the sides along with it.

Sure, you said the word 'state'. State of what? Can you prove it is possible for a 'state' of 'no entities' to 'exist'?

Again, I thought I'd done this.

To show that necessarily something exists would be to demonstrate that there is a contradiction that can be derived from the statement "there are no things that exist". (Otherwise it would not be necessarily false.) But how can there be a contradiction where there are no objects to form propositions about? There can't, can there? For a contradiction would involve asserting and denying that the existence of an object having a given predicate, the existence of two objects standing in a given relation, etc. But if you think you can frame such a proposition, have at it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know enough about the nature of reality or the nature of existence to tell you if a contradiction exists between these concepts and the concept of 'no thing existing'. But I don't need to since I'm only proposing that this needs to be established before the proof in the OP gets off the ground.

Well, I seem to have established it. Unless you have a rebuttal to my argument.

Yes. You have failed to provide confirmation that it is possible for no entities to exist according to the reality we are in.

Well of course entities exist in the reality that we are in. But I have demonstrated that they do not exist as a matter of logical necessity.

Well that proves how things are in an imaginary world.

And to prove that the opposite was necessary, you would have to show that things couldn't be like that in an imaginary world.

The statement necessarily contradicts itself. There are no things that exist, therefore there are no statements that exist.

Huh?

However, surely any reality is something and it's necessary that there is one ...

Why?

Why is it necessary? Because its opposite can't be real.

I concede that unreality can't be real.

Nonexistence, on the other hand, can.

If someone told you that unicorns must exist because the unreality of unicorns can't be real, would you buy it?

Quite. Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue.

Non-existence can't exist itself ...

Can the non-existence of unicorns exist?

It's hard to stay in sync in discussions like this. I thought we agreed when you said, "Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue," but if your question about "the non-existence of unicorns" implies it's a thing rather than a proposition then I probably misunderstood you.

No, I'm implying that it would be silly for that to be a thing.