A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

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

Dr Adequate writes: Huh?

Sorry. I somehow misread your post. If you mean that in a reality of nothing contingent, nothing would be necessary, that seems to be correct on the face of it if we allow reality to be a nothing. However, surely any reality is something and it's necessary that there is one, so there does seem to a contradiction in the proposition of "nothingness" as a reality.

Dr.Adequate writes: Why?

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

Dr. Adequate writes: I concede that unreality can't be real. Nonexistence, on the other hand, can.

Non-existence can't exist itself, making the existence of existence a necessity.

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

No. But what actually exists is a state of no unicorns, or a reality of no unicorns. Unicorns are contingent, so you can have a unicorn or no unicorn reality. Because we say casually "unicorns don't exist" doesn't mean we've actually pulled non-existence itself into existence, merely that the current state of existence doesn't include them. We can't do that for reality and existence themselves, as their negations can't be real or exist.

Adequate writes: Can the non-existence of unicorns exist

It's oxymoronic at best, as when we use the phrase "unicorns exist nowhere". The concept exists, but then unicorns exist as a concept, and so does the idea of a reality of pure nothingness.

Absence of an entity depends on the existence of existence and the reality of reality, as does presence. There's always something.

nano writes: No conundrum exists. As the proof shows, the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

If the logic used in your proof is necessarily correct, and doesn't require a causal explanation, then that would leave you without a proof. If it isn't necessarily correct, then that leaves you without a proof.

nano writes: bluegenes writes: If the logic used in your proof is necessarily correct, and doesn't require a causal explanation, then that would leave you without a proof. If it isn't necessarily correct, then that leaves you without a proof. I maintain the simple logic of my proof stands on its own.

Surely your proof relies on things not standing on their own. Is the existence of logic necessary?

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

I was asking the O.P. if he thought it necessary. I personally think it requires a somethingness reality, and therefore doesn't qualify as an uncaused first cause. Statements and their makers are things, which is why the one you used further up the thread is inherently false because it can only exist in a world where it's false. A bit like "Statements are never made".

In using logic in discussing the O.P., we may all be unwittingly treating the existence of some things as necessary.

BTW, we can't strictly prove a claim like "unicorns exist nowhere", but "nothingness exists nowhere" is necessarily true, assuming that our type of reality is a necessary thing, and therefore a place is necessarily something.

Edited by bluegenes, : tpyo

nano writes: I just meant that it is simple and logical.

Doesn't your O.P. assume reality as a necessary first thing without intending to?

bluegenes writes: nano writes: Doesn't your O.P. assume reality as a necessary first thing without intending to? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. My proof is simple and straight forward. It should be understood that way.

Your proof assumes a consistent reality in which laws of cause and effect work, and which allows your logic to work. It treats that reality as a necessary entity, a thing that must exist. That reality can be the "first thing" you describe. So, you are unintentionally assuming something to be necessary (must exist and therefore requires no explanation) in order to prove that the "first thing" cannot be explained.

So, your proof seems to have an inbuilt contradiction.

nano writes: Logically, cause and effect could be considered to be part of the structure of physical laws of the universe. The laws of physics could have been the first thing and as such their origin is unexplainable. In turn, the origin of the universe is unexplainable.

There you go again. A consistent reality in which something would always require a causal explanation is assumed, as if necessary. And you even have the laws of the universe being evoked to explain its existence (which would mean that it would be necessarily self-causing).

If a consistent reality is necessary to your proof, it is a necessary first thing, and requires no explanation. You can't have it both ways.

Another thing you might like to work on is the point that first, second, third things etc. are time dependent, so if time is the tenth thing, for example, there would actually be nine first things, not one.

That is, if we assume a necessary consistent reality.

Non-reality can't be real (by definition).

Reality, then, necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

Therefore, reality is an uncaused first cause that requires no explanation.

Dr. Adequate writes: Can the non-reality of unicorns be real?

No. They could be absent from many possible worlds.

Adequate writes: Surely what you mean to say is that reality is real in all possible worlds?

I'm meaning to say that reality and existence necessitate each other. If we accept that a world like ours is real, we must accept that it exists, and if we accept that it exists, it must be real. A world without them cannot be and isn't real.

Dr. Adequate writes: Why would it be a first cause? For example, suppose the reality was that there were no things. Why would that give rise to things, such as the universe?

It wouldn't. Time and existence would be required to put anything "before" the universe, and a no-thing can't be real, anyway. Reality and existence abhor a true vacuum and they necessitate at least one other thing. Nothingness can only exist as a concept. The notorious "why is there something rather than nothing" question is really "why is there a reality rather than not" or "why existence". The O.P. assumes the existence of a reality in which its reasoning works, which is why I'm putting forward the case for necessary entities, knowing full well that you will try to claim that there's no contradiction in what is defined as not existing (nothingness) existing (presumably nowhere).

The O.P. is claiming a proof, and so has the burden of proof. The relevant part is at the end, when nano claims that something that always exists can't be explained because it has no cause.

Dr. Adequate writes: So where are all the unicorns?

If unicorns aren't real, they are presumably inhabiting the nowhere land described at the beginning of the O.P., along with all the other no-things.

Adequate writes: I will also claim that there's no contradiction in the phrase "no unicorn exists"; and that anyone who claims to have found one is trying much too hard to be confused by what is not even nearly the most difficult aspect of the English language.

Then there's no contradiction in the phrases "no statements exist" and "no logic exists" and "nowhere exists". Indeed, the O.P. seems to depend on nowhere being able to exist, because otherwise it can't claim that somewhere cannot be a necessary entity requiring no causal explanation.

And if nowhere, we can definitely have the land of Oz and Middle-Earth. So, perhaps you should stop treating unicorns with such disdain.

Dr. Adequate writes: Your argument has become somewhat hard to follow.

I agree. It must be for anyone else, because I'm having enough trouble with it. So I'll try to take it step by step.

In order to make a proof like the one in the O.P., which requires there to be no necessary self-explanatory entity, the proof defeats itself if its argument relies on assuming any such entity to be necessary.

Would you agree?