A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible?

How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible?

By virtue of not being logically inconsistent.

Dr. Adequate writes: bluegenes writes: How would a reality in which there's nothing real be possible? By virtue of not being logically inconsistent.

Is reality a thing?

Is reality a thing?

I shouldn't have said so. Surely it's more of a quality, like blueness or octagonality. You'd wind up with some very strange consequences if you started reifying all the nouns.

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

How does that address my point. What I have said is that the term "explanation" is not limited to origin stories or causal explanations, but that you have limited the definition to such things for the purpose of this thread. I have acknowledged your right to do place such limitations.

If this is insufficient for you I would ask if you disagree with my base premise that the first thing cannot be explained

Haven't I been perfectly clear about about my position on this? You asked me to cite examples of explanations that were not causal. I did so but received no feedback other than to ask me a question I've answered several times.

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

Let's agree to disagree about that.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Adequate writes: I shouldn't have said so. Surely it's more of a quality, like blueness or octagonality. You'd wind up with some very strange consequences if you started reifying all the nouns.

In which case, it's thing dependent, and the same for existence if we view it as a state of things rather than a thing. Pure nothingness cannot be real and cannot exist without contradiction.

Not only does at least one thing exist without prior cause, as in the O.P. but at least one thing must necessarily exist in all "possible worlds".

Those that necessarily cannot have the qualities of reality and existence are in the set of impossible worlds.

In which case, it's thing dependent, and the same for existence if we view it as a state of things rather than a thing. Pure nothingness cannot be real and cannot exist without contradiction.

Well, there you're reifying "nothingness" as well.

According to you, can we have a box with nothing in it?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Adequate writes: Well, there you're reifying "nothingness" as well.

I thought that's what you were trying to do. I'm happy with it as a concept, just as we're both happy with unicorns.

Adequate writes: According to you, can we have a box with nothing in it?

No.

Hyroglyphx writes: 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.

In general, arguments from ignorance are very weak but infinite regression is interesting. However, isn't it really the same as a causal loop and therefore illogical? At any rate it would be "the thing that has always been there" and therefore could not be explained.

NoNukes writes: How does that address my point. What I have said is that the term "explanation" is not limited to origin stories or causal explanations, but that you have limited the definition to such things for the purpose of this thread. I have acknowledged your right to do place such limitations.

OK. Your only argument is over the use of the term "explained". As such I certainly acknowledge your right to do so though it seems like quibbling and doesn't address the merits of the proof at all.

In general though I would say there is certainly a broad continuum of explanation for anything. There are good explanations and bad ones. There are partial (or immediate) explanations clear up through almost ultimate explanations.

I thought that's what you were trying to do.

No.

No.

Interesting. Does that apply to every particular thing, or just some things? For example, can you have a box with no unicorns in it?

OK. Your only argument is over the use of the term "explained". As such I certainly acknowledge your right to do so though it seems like quibbling and doesn't address the merits of the proof at all.

That's not quite right. I acknowledged your right to define "explain" any way you want to.

My issue with your proof is simply that you have defined universe and explain in such a way that you have ruled out what are conventionally called explanations. In short your definitions and premises leave nothing left to prove.

It is as if you have defined father to include only living males, and then offered to prove that we could not identify an orphan's father. Yeah, that's true, but so what?

In general, arguments from ignorance are very weak but infinite regression is interesting. However, isn't it really the same as a causal loop and therefore illogical? At any rate it would be "the thing that has always been there" and therefore could not be explained.

Well, I would absolutely agree that it is a weak argument because it lacks a definitive explanation and, moreover, infinite regression is simply delaying the problem the First Cause imposes. In that case it would seem that if all things are temporal, at least something about the properties of the universe is either infinite or exists outside of the time-space continuum. This is usually where a God-of-the-Gaps argument comes in to play for religious people. But this too lacks any definitive explanation which still leaves us scratching our heads both scientifically and philosophically.

Dr. Adequate writes: Interesting. Does that apply to every particular thing, or just some things? For example, can you have a box with no unicorns in it?

Certainly. And it could be a horse box without a horse. If we could take everything out of our box, every particle, and try to get an absence of space time itself, what might happen at the point where we seem to achieve it, instead of the desired result, whoosh "big bang", we've created another set of dimensions, lots of somethingness, and become gods.

That may be the sort of thing that happened somewhere (not nowhere) 14 billion years ago.

We would, in the course of the experiment, have explained somethingness as necessary. We would have reasonably explained the universe (not just our dimensions) by showing that reality doesn't tolerate true nothingness even in a small area.

In order for someone to have a proof that the universe is inexplicable, they need to show that it can never be explained without reference to prior cause.

It may be worth noting that the universe, for the same reason that it has no prior cause for its existence, has no prior constraints. If things can be explained by prior cause, why can't they be explained by the absence of constraints?

Why does the universe exist?

Because it encompasses all things and does exist, it doesn't require a prior cause, and there could never have been anything to prevent it.

NoNukes writes: It is as if you have defined father to include only living males, and then offered to prove that we could not identify an orphan's father. Yeah, that's true, but so what?

I disagree of course, but at this point its best left up to individual readers to decide.