A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

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.

However, surely any reality is something and it's necessary that there is one ...

Why?

Well of course entities exist in the reality that we are in. But I have demonstrated that they do not exist as a matter of logical necessity.

And yet I am none the wiser about whether actual necessary entities are real because you are inferring about things in your mind.

And to prove that the opposite was necessary, you would have to show that things couldn't be like that in an imaginary world.

I make no claims about an imaginary world.

In a situation where it is possible that something exists, can it also be possible that nothing exists?

Dr.Adequate writes: Why?

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

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

I concede that unreality can't be real.

Nonexistence, on the other hand, can.

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

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

Maybe it would help if we drew a distinction between things that are tangible, real, have existence, etc., and things that are ideas or concepts, which can be true or false or anywhere in between. Then we could call the unreality of unicorns "true" rather than "real." This might avoid the difficulty of somehow incorporating into our worldview that existence includes all ideas that are false, including those not yet thought of, or even ever thought of.

--Percy

Quite. Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue.

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.

Non-existence can't exist itself ...

Can the non-existence of unicorns exist?

But you are assuming that the explanation must be logical and that the first cause had to be caused? Other than your unsupported assertions is there any evidence the first cause had to be caused?

Logically there can be no explanation because there is no first cause. There is only a first thing and it is uncaused. That is the point of the proof.

Dr Adequate writes: Can the non-existence of unicorns exist?

It's hard to stay in sync in discussions like this. I thought we agreed when you said, "Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue," but if your question about "the non-existence of unicorns" implies it's a thing rather than a proposition then I probably misunderstood you.

--Percy

nano writes: There is only a first thing and it is uncaused.

But the lack of a cause doesn't imply a lack of an explanation.

--Percy

It's hard to stay in sync in discussions like this. I thought we agreed when you said, "Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue," but if your question about "the non-existence of unicorns" implies it's a thing rather than a proposition then I probably misunderstood you.

No, I'm implying that it would be silly for that to be a thing.

Logically there can be no explanation because there is no first cause. There is only a first thing and it is uncaused. That is the point of the proof.

But there can be an explanation; for example "The first cause has no prior cause." would be an explanation. "It is turtles all the way down." is an explanation. "Brahma slept and dreamed." is an explanation.

But there can be an explanation; for example "The first cause has no prior cause." would be an explanation.

That wouldn't be an explanation, just an observation.

"It is turtles all the way down." is an explanation.

How do you explain all the turtles?

"Brahma slept and dreamed." is an explanation.

Why is there Brahma?