A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

This is a followup to a previous discussion: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically ExplainedFor your consideration and comment I propose the following simple thought and logic experiment. FYI - for my purposes the term universe = multiverse = all of existence. A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot be Explained6. Ultimate Corollary - Given that the universe itself cannot be explained, then nothing in the universe can be ultimately explained. (This corollary was added to the original proof on 5/21/16 by nano with admin permission. See Message 166)Thank you for your attention, your consideration and your comments.**************************************************
Added on 10/23/16:End of Discussion Proof ReformulationTaking into account all of existence and considering everything that ever existed anywhere, there are only two possible origin states for the first thing ever to exist:- It either created itself from absolutely nothing, which is impossible to explain- Or it was always there and had no beginning, which is also impossible to explain- Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explainedWhere: Universe = Multiverse = All of ExistenceEdited by Admin, : Make text of link to thread be the title, and minor cleanup.Edited by Admin, : More cleanup.Edited by nano, : Added #6 to the proof with Percy's permissionEdited by nano, : changed "universe = multiverse" to "universe = multiverse = all of existence" Edited by nano, : No reason given.Edited by nano, : No reason given.Edited by nano, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Is there a point or value to your assertion? Is it really just turtles all the way down?Does it matter whether or not there is or was some first cause?Are we not more interested in what caused this accident, what caused this fire, what caused this banana to taste better than that banana?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I think there's a problem in step 3: How does it follow that an event with no cause has no explanation? We can explain the Casimir effect and radioactivity, and we can at least describe quantum uncertainty. I guess you could claim that any event resulting from quantum uncertainty has no cause, but arguing against that is that even though quantum uncertainty has yet to give up all it's secrets we still know a great deal about it. Entire libraries of books describing various facets of something is the opposite of the absence of an explanation, even if we still have a long way to go.--Percy

Because explaining it would be the same as saying what caused it?

" Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises.""Why is there something rather than nothing"They may be unanswerable, if that is what you are driving at. However, the answer might be ‘There is no alternative to there being something’. Which would explain why there is something quite nicely. Does it have space or time? Tongue in cheek question really, but it's there because there is a relationship between space and time and 'things'. I mean what if the size of the universe is just the answer to 'what is the longest distance between two things?'
I'm assuming you are making the first points not trying to make a cosmology argument.However, in that spirit - can you prove an empty universe - ie., 'the state of nothing' - is possible? Can you disprove that there are some necessary entities? Because if they do exist then the explanation to their existence is that they are necessarily existent, which would disprove you. So for your proof to be a proof, it has to be able to rule out the alternatives that would disprove it.It may be difficult to prove there are necessary entities, but it cannot be ruled out at this time, so maybe there is an explanation for the universe.

Ooh, ooh, I though of an alternative: there not being anything. That would work.

Is that a state of affairs that is an actual possible alternative, or is it just a grammatical alternative?In other words, are there necessary entities?If there are necessary entities there 'there not being anything' is not possible as those entities necessarily exist.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well, for there to be necessary entities, a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms. But how? It could not involve a state where there was some x for which P(x) and ~P(x), because there would not, in fact, be some x.

Exactly. Since we can explain contingent entities based on other contingent entities or on necessary entities, and we can explain necessary entities as they are necessary. It is therefore possible that the universe can be explained.To prove that the universe 'Cannot Be Explained' therefore, means proving no necessary entities exist.

I thought I just did that.

Evidently, I didn't notice. If I interpret your post as being a proposed proof of this then

quote:

---

a state where there were no entities would have to involve a contradiction in terms.

---

Sure, you said the word 'state'. State of what?Can you prove it is possible for a 'state' of 'no entities' to 'exist'?abeThe contradiction ultimately, if there is one,would between the nature of reality and the nature of any entities that are necessary according to the nature of reality.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Here is the proof FOR necessary entitiesImagine a world where there are only contingent entities. Since all entities are explained in terms of other entities, this implies either an infinite regression or a circularity of causation. Each of these explanatory entities, is necessary. A necessary entity contradicts the statement there are only contingent entities. Therefore there cannot be contingent only entities.

"Is there a point to your assertion?"My point is simply that how the universe began cannot be logically explained. I believe this proof proves it. Some may be interested in this proof and some may not. I offer it as it is.

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.