Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.
Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?
It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.
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?
Because in the "proof", things aren't existing until they are in the universe. So a brane that's there before the universe isn't a thing that exists.
No that's not what nano means.
I can live with that.
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.
I don't think one needs to prove an explanation. It just needs to explain. If it can be no other way that would explain the universe, would it not?
I was kinda looking for an explanation with a justification. I will concede that anything can be explained badly.
Can you prove it could be some other way?
Well, the alternative seems to be logically consistent.
If there is nothing, there is no possibility of there being something. Since we know there is a possibility of there being something *points around at some things* there is no possibility of there being nothing.
"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.
If that leaves anything to salvage from the OP, it is clear then that the OP defines 'explanation' as something that uniquely applies to the universe in a way that it would never apply to anything else.
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.