A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained

My question is if an absence of anything can actually be. That is, have the property of being. You know, existing. You seem to be saying "No" while also entertaining the idea of "Yes".Wouldn't the opposite of existence have to not exist?Does that make existence inevitable?Is that an "explanation"?

Hi Cat No.As I said non existence is way over your head.God Bless,

Oh where and when can non-existence be?
Its present absence always eludes me
I've heard it said
Look overhead
In Heaven non-existence you will see

For 2nd things and beyond I would agree with you, but by its very nature the 1st thing has only two possible origin states and both are unexplainable. The logic dictates it.

There is a singularity where logic breaks down.

Not really. If a singularity were the 1st thing ever to exist, then normal 1st thing rules would apply and you could logically ask "Where did it come from?"

A singularity is not a thing. It is "where" (though it is not a place) you can no longer ask, "Where did it come from?" No logic is possible beyond that "point".So I kind of agree with you: The universe can not be explained in the same way that a tree can be explained - but neither can you "prove" that it can not be explained. At some "point" (which is not a place) all logic goes offline; the screen goes blank.

Not exactly. At the point of the singularity, space-time was not present. Without the temporal dimension in place, the natural causal relationship between cause and effect is not in place.It is easier to think of the universe and the singularity as different 'states'. Not unlike water changing from liquid to vapor. The universe, at the expansion event, went through a state change.

Nicely stated. This indicates a problem with one of the premises in the argument, which is one of the reasons I find the OP of limited use. Some things may not be caused by any conventional meaning of that term, and for those things, requiring an explanation to be causal is simply silly.

I agree with you. There is a very real information wall at the beginning of all existence. All available information is contained in the 1st thing. It doesn't matter what it is. There can be no more discovery. This is why I say the 1st thing cannot be explained.Edited by nano, : No reason given.Edited by nano, : No reason given.

I understand and agree. As a 1st thing, the singularity fits perfectly into one of the two origin states I have discussed. It has essentially "always been there", uncaused and uncreated. It has no beginning and thus cannot be explained. The time element, and causal relationships are not important in this origin state.Without time, without causality, even at the point of a singularity, it is still logical to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe exist?" These questions remain.And they cannot be answered.

These statements, in my opinion, make no sense. As used here, those statements are only premises or axioms which themselves are not subject to inquiry or a requirement to be demonstrated.On the other hand, folks have every right to question them, and ask that they be demonstrated.

I'm not saying anything new. The two 1st thing origin states are clearly stated in the OP.

No, the logic does not dictate it.Phew. That was easy. Thought you were going to have an actual discussion there or something.This is the part where you actually describe how the logic dictates such a thing... if you can, anyway.
My point is that you can't do this because you can't "dictate" that an alternative cannot exist simply because you (or even "we") cannot think of an alternative right now.That is a logical fallacy.If order for the logic to "dictate it" you have to actually prove that any and all alternatives are impossible.Good luck.

In actuality, there is no logical segue way from the singularity to asking why there is something rather than nothing. Existence does not require a temporal component. Asking 'why' is also not really a valid question in that circumstance as you are now getting into philosophical constructs versus physics-based assertions. 'Why is there something rather than nothing' or 'Why does the universe exist' are along the same lines as asking 'why do I exist'. It is a question assuming that existence requires a purpose of some sort. And in actuality, existence is not in anyway predicated on the notion of any sort of purpose.If you are asserting that the philosophical questions themselves cannot be answered, that is due to the ambiguity of the question itself and the fact that it is attempting to apply meaning to a mechanism that is not necessarily meaning-based.Note that these statements are common in religious circles in the realm of 'why did god allow my loved one to die' or 'why did god let me get sick'. Once again, they are attempting to assert meaning or purpose to a specific situation or idea, but they don't, in and of themselves, have any absolute proofs. Which is why the response is often 'the lord works in mysterious ways'. The answer is just as ambiguous as the question.Pertaining to the discovery around the nature of the universe, it is far more logical to assert the concepts of randomness and chance. Since we already know that quantum mechanics is chance-based, the nature of the universe and how it manifested from a previous state is more akin to a random event as opposed to any purposeful event.