A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

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.

Again, I have dealt with this. If the first thing has always existed then it's origin cannot be explained. Therefore the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

So? First things can't be explained. That is part of my proof.

First things cannot have causal explanations. They may have explanations that are not descriptions of causation.

And why is something beyond challenge simply because it is part of your proof? Everything your proof relies on as well as its conclusion can be challenged. The only possible exceptions are assumptions that you put outside of challenge by making them axioms. But even then, if we don't accept your axioms, then your proof becomes something that can be discarded simply by pointing out that the axioms may not reflect reality.

I am genuinely interested. What types of explanations are not causal? And all challenges are accepted and legitimate.

nano writes: What types of explanations are not causal?

Our ancestors had an "explanation" of how flint works, which enabled them to work it into useful tools, which in turn enhanced their ability to survive. They didn't need an "explanation" of where flint comes from.

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).

Why? They're not 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.

Your meaning is obscure.

I am genuinely interested. What types of explanations are not causal? And all challenges are accepted and legitimate.

Just as an example, radioactive decay events are uncaused. But we can completely describe the probabilities of a decay event occurring in terms of the fields and charges present in an unstable atom. We know why a decay happens, but there are no precursors other than the existence of the nucleus itself for decay. We cannot point to any state of the nucleus and say, this state prompts a particle to leave the nucleus now.

Given all of that, the quantum mechanical model completely describes and explains why and how a nucleus emits an alpha or beta particle.

Given another view, we might explain your genealogy as a sequence of who begat whom where the begats represents some portion of the cause. Or alternatively we might present a simple list of your ancestors and their relations without detailing any causes or begatting. Each of those would be a explanation of your history. Yes there are causes involved, but those neither the causes nor their details, nor the motivation for those causes need be part of the explanation.

I can explain why metal is conductive without explaining where electrons and protons come from, I can describe how transistors work without explaining where Silicon atoms originate. There is no sense in which such descriptions are not explanations.

You have co-opted the word explanation to mean 'only causal origin stories traceable to ultimate causes'. I have no problem with that. It was my error to misinterpret the meaning of 'explained' in the title to have the dictionary meaning and to force that over the alternate definition in the OP.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

nano writes: Again, I have dealt with this. If the first thing has always existed then it's origin cannot be explained.

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?

You have co-opted the word explanation to mean 'only causal origin stories traceable to ultimate causes'.

I have said that there are immediate causes separate from the ultimate cause of everything.

If this is insufficient for you I would ask if you disagree with my base premise that the first thing cannot be explained. I believe you would say it is obvious. Very good then.

The problem is its not obvious to most people. They are looking for an explanation for the origin of the universe and won't find one.

In this way, even if my proof is a logical tautology it is still a useful one.

Logically, the first thing can have no explanation. Since its the first thing there is nothing else to explain it. 2nd things and beyond can certainly be explained by the things that came before.

Not sure your logic follows. Just because something is yet to be sufficiently explained does not mean it cannot ever be explained. In an Infinite Regression model, you could say the creation of this universe was precipitated by the destruction of a previous one ad infinitum.

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.

A. A universe would necessarily exist in all possible realities, because there has to be at least one thing to be real.

Why isn't it possible for no thing to be real?

Dr. Adequate writes: Why isn't it possible for no thing to be real?

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.

Ask Nano to explain why it is possible.

Because it is logically consistent: there is no contradiction to be derived from applying logic to the proposition ¬∃x : x=x.

If you want to claim that it's impossible, the ball's in your court, if you want to conjure universes into existence a priori, then you may have to do some actual work. You may indeed find it beyond your powers: no-one has as yet deduced so much as grain of sand by mere ratiocination, so I should be surprised if you could deduce a cosmos.

Dr. Adequate writes: Because it is logically consistent:

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?

Dr Adequate writes: If you want to claim that it's impossible, the ball's in your court, if you want to conjure universes into existence a priori, then you may have to do some actual work.

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?

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.

Since I do not claim that, I don't need to demonstrate it.

How is a non-existent reality a possible one?

By virtue of, y'know, being possible. For example, the reality in which I am wearing my underpants on my head is possible, according to any meaningful usage of that word. Yet that "reality" is non-existent. If you object to your usage of the word "reality" in this context, you should probably stop using it.