A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

nano writes: As the proof shows,...

But you don't have a proof. You have a leap of illogic lacking justification and opposed by real-world examples.

...when you consider the first thing in the universe being without cause then the origin of the universe cannot be explained.

Since we have explanations for other uncaused things, like radioactivity and the Casimir effect, why not for the origin of the universe?

It would be nice to move the discussion forward, but repetitions of original assertions do not merit new arguments.

--Percy

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

I just meant that it is simple and logical.

Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? Perhaps it was the first thing in the universe. As such, it has no cause and cannot be explained. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

A quantum fluctuation is not a "thing" but a process that happens on its own volition. It's not like you need a loaded quantum fluctuation ready to pop before it happens. I suppose, in a sense, one might argue a quantum fluctuation comes from the void, but, it's not like one was just sitting around waiting to go off.

The process, not the thing, could have produced the first thing in this universe and it could have done so from the void. In this way the first thing in our universe may very well have a cause and may very well be explainable.

I know, the next question is where did the process come from. Might as well ask where the void came from.

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.

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?

But that is not what he asked, and if the answer to any of those is simply that it has no cause then that is the explanation.

But "it just did" is not an explanation.

Since we have explanations for other uncaused things, like radioactivity and the Casimir effect, why not for the origin of the universe?

Well, in this context calling those things "uncaused" is at worst tendentious and at best misses the point.

When (for example) a radioactive atom decays, there may be no reason why it did so at that point rather than some other, but there are reasons why it did so: there is the atom and its nature.

This would not do for the origin of everything: if you had something that had a tendency to turn into everything, then you'd already have a thing.

Another one is where you have half-things in quasi-existence ...

That's only a case that we need to consider if the concepts of "half-thing" and "quasi-existence" mean anything. When you think of a universe like that, what are you thinking of?

Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.

It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.

Something like branes colliding, but after the universe is there rather than before it.

Assuming that the physicists are right about branes, in what sense are branes not things? In what sense don't they exist?

It isn't necessary that there are no things and then there are things, there could be intermediate stages.

Well, there again, I find it hard to attach any referents to your words. Can you picture an intermediate stage? I cannot. What would a half-existent banana look like? What would there be about it that would make us call it a half-existing banana rather than a completely existing ... uh ... ana?

But if "it just exists" is true then yes it is 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.

I can live with that.

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.

No that's not what nano means.

I can live with that.

People can usually live with the defects of their own reasoning, but they often find it difficult to convince others.

Words need to have referents. If you were to try to overturn (let us say) a theorem in Euclid by saying "But what if the triangle was a four-sided triangle", then your argument would not be persuasive because the phrase "four-sided triangle" does not mean anything.

But if "it just exists" is true then yes it is an explanation.

No.

No that's not what nano means.

What do they mean?