A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

That wouldn't be an explanation, just an observation.

How do you explain all the turtles?

Why is there Brahma?

No, that's very much his point.

As I understand nano, by "the universe" he means absolutely everything, including Brahma, turtles, and so forth.

I think talking of logic as "existing" is extremely tendentious; unless one means as a concept or a subject of study, in which case its existence is not at all necessary.

But "it just did" is not an explanation.

Well, in this context calling those things "uncaused" is at worst tendentious and at best misses the point.

When (for example) a radioactive atom decays, there may be no reason why it did so at that point rather than some other, but there are reasons why it did so: there is the atom and its nature.

This would not do for the origin of everything: if you had something that had a tendency to turn into everything, then you'd already have a thing.

That's only a case that we need to consider if the concepts of "half-thing" and "quasi-existence" mean anything. When you think of a universe like that, what are you thinking of?

Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words. Can you picture an intermediate stage? I cannot. What would a half-existent banana look like? What would there be about it that would make us call it a half-existing banana rather than a completely existing ... uh ... ana?

No that's not what nano means.

People can usually live with the defects of their own reasoning, but they often find it difficult to convince others.

Words need to have referents. If you were to try to overturn (let us say) a theorem in Euclid by saying "But what if the triangle was a four-sided triangle", then your argument would not be persuasive because the phrase "four-sided triangle" does not mean anything.

No.

Well, he would count the brane as being a thing that exists and so part of the universe.

Discussing the innate nature of nothing is like discussing the color of my unicorn.

Which we prove how?

I was kinda looking for an explanation with a justification. I will concede that anything can be explained badly.

Well, the alternative seems to be logically consistent.

"If this is square, there is no possibility of it being triangular. Since we know that there is a possibility of it being triangular *counts its sides, of which there are three* there is no possibility of it being square."

Well, if that is advanced just to prove that a thing can't be triangular and square at once, then it is innocuous but inconsequential. But if it is meant to prove that the thing is necessarily not square, then it could use a little work. For of course that could have been an unrealized possibility.

No, it's just in the nature of the question being asked that when an explanation is being sought for everything, any proposed secondary cause is among the things being explained.

After all, a secondary cause is only acceptable as an explanation when it is in fact a cause of the thing being explained. If we ask "Why did Fred murder John?", then "Because the bullet penetrated John's heart" is not an answer, because that comes further down the causal chain. It would be no good protesting that secondary causes should be good enough as an explanation. That particular secondary cause is an explanation for something, but not for the thing you're being asked to explain.