A=B The first thing is the universe at that point.
Or the first things are the universe at that point, but either way your "proof" doesn't account for these possibilities.
Your "proof" is limited to a universe that exists as a null set and then is populated with things. It doesn't account for other types of universes that aren't like that, like the ones I've brought up.
Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence that combine to form the first things that exist in the universe. It just pushes it back a step, but the first things that exist in the universe would have an explanation.
Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?
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. The proof fails to take that possibility into account.
Also, it isn't necessary that there must first be one thing that exists in the universe. It could've be multiple things, or even partial things. There could be intermediate stages to the emergence of the first things.
QFT was already brought up, I wouldn't call a quantum field a thing that exists inside the universe, its more like a part of the universe, itself.
The concept that the universe was a null set and then something started existing inside it, is only one concept of how the universe began. Even if the proof succeeds in proving that that universe couldn't be explained, it doesn't account for other ways in which the universe could have began.
Using terms like semi-things quasi-existing wasn't an attempt to form a concrete idea, but rather to open up the questioning of the universe having to be a null set that is then populated with just one thing.
Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words.
You see how there is something, rather than nothing, in that second quote?
Why is the null set necessary to have something existing?
Because it is a thing, itself.
The quote box is there which means something exists, a quote box.
And the quote box is in a message, which is on a forum, which is on a website, which is on a server.... At some point we're going to have to draw a line and say that the medium in which we are communicating about somethings does not count as one of the things we are discussing.
But you were presenting the quote box as the first thing just like nano's empty universe.
No, I wasn't.
The first quote box was to show one with nothing in it.
The second one was to show one with the empty set in it. That empty set would be the first thing that is in a quote box.
OP analogizes the universe as the empty set that then gets populated with things. That empty universe is called "nothing".
I was showing that even the empty set is something rather than nothing.
The point was that the first thing would be the universe itself rather than having an empty universe that then later contains the first thing.
Since the universe is made up of things, without things you cannot have a universe.
Existence is what is required for anything to exist, or begin to exist.
Existence is a property that things have, it does not exist independent of things. Existence cannot be a prerequisite for things anymore than things can be a prerequisite for existence. They're intertwined, one does not come before the other.
So if there is non existence there is no way for anything to begin to exist.
If there IS non-existence? Can non-existence have the property of being? Doesn't being mean existing?
Isn't that nano's reason for having an empty universe that can fill up with things?
I dunno, he's not saying much more. In order to go from non-existence to things existing, you have to put non-existence inside some kind of container and then have an outside influence kick off the first things.
The problem with the OP is that our universe doesn't fit that model. At best, it's a proof that a particular universe isn't "explainable", it's just not describing this universe.
But since he has an existing empty universe in his proof the universe can be explained.
It would be an uncaused eternal entity.
Sort of, but it doesn't really matter if that universe contains things or not. And if you make, for that universe, time in the past direction finite then you escape the otherwise inevitable heat death.
But I reject the concept of an "empty universe". The universe is the sum of all things, not a container that may or may not have things in it.