I hear that existence came from "nothing", but I've also heard that it is part of a vast assortment of other universes in a conglomeration known as the "multiverse". Some scientists even postulate that there are "parallel universes" where you and I have other versions of ourselves that have made alternate choices in life, possibly every version of ourselves having been carried out. — chiknsld

Even with those proposed explanations, there's still the question, "Well what caused parallel or mulitverses to be?" I explore the logic here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary if you're interested.

In short, it is logically necessary that within any causal chain, there is a "first cause". This is something which has no explanation for its existence, other than the fact it is. The big bang might have been self-explained. The universe may have just popped into existence at once, in pieces, etc. There still may be self-explained things happening today. We honestly would have an extremely difficult time knowing, as a self-explained existence has no rules for what it can, or cannot be.

So just appreciate that what ever one or several first causes have made the universe what it is today, it just happened to be with no real reason behind it. The question really is, what will we do with what we have today? Decide your own purpose, and live it well.

My friend, you braved the answer to my question, and so I must be brave enough to be as modest as you are.

The real question is when did understanding, that which we call understanding, perhaps consciousness of existence come into.. coherence?

Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it?

The real question is when did understanding, that which we call understanding, perhaps consciousness of existence come into.. coherence? — Outlander

From recent ganders on the net, I've seen growing talk of "evolution of consciousness".

Someone by the name of Donald Hoffman (cognitive scientist) claims that evolution shapes consciousness, which is a bit of a strange way of saying that consciousness evolves. Such a theory would have very little, if anything to do with science as there is currently no quantification of consciousness.

Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it? — Outlander

Hmm, I've never heard such a question. I suppose that a single-celled organism is no match for our 170 billion brain cells tirelessly working in unison? :snicker:

something was always here — chiknsld

That's where I put my vote, based on not much of anything. It's not begging the question at all, it's saying the question is meaningless.

The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God? — chiknsld

Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god).

What caused existence to be, and why?

What caused causality "to be"? :chin:

"Existence fails to be" (or "existence cannot be") is a self-contradiction like "nonexistence exists". Also, the only answer to the (ultimate) "why" question which does not precipitate an infinite regress is that There Is No Why. :eyes:

Is it even important to ask such questions?

They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions.

:up:

Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction: it is asking for what existed without existence. Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being", and, consequently, it is not possible to actually posit the question "what is the predicate of existence": it can be uttered, but nevertheless references something causing something under the universal spatial (and "being") reference. Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence, but merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples"). And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique).

That's where I put my vote, based on not much of anything. It's not begging the question at all, it's saying the question is meaningless. — T Clark

Hmm, well "begging the question" is the informal fallacy of the conclusion being contained in the premise, it has nothing to do with an actual question, per say. Let me explain (and sorry that I was not more clear).

As far as "something always being here", it begs the question in the sense that we are even here talking about it in the first place. In an infinite world it should follow that there is no explanation for "infinity", rather, it would be a given (I believe this is what you were trying to convey as well). :smile:

It would be akin to the question, "what is the predicate of a human?", and the answer being "the human genome". Sure, the human genome can explain in part why we are human, but the answer is tautological in nature and gets us really nowhere closer to the truth (unless that is, you believe existence precedes essence, in which case "the human genome" would be a perfectly fair explanation for "humanness").

And so, asking the predicate of existence, and the answer being "something was always here" is in a sense merely a begging of the question, and at the very least an infinite regression.

And so, asking the predicate of existence, and the answer being "something was always here" is in a sense merely a begging of the question, and at the very least an infinite regression. — chiknsld

If, in fact, it is true that the universe is eternal, then it is neither begging the question nor an infinite regress. It doesn't make sense to ask a question then exclude a possible answer.

What caused causality "to be"? — 180 Proof

I think it would be easier on the eyes if you wrote that, "why does causality exist?" :snicker:

What caused existence to be, and why? — chiknsld

What caused causality "to be"? "Existence fails to be" (or "existence cannot be") is a self-contradiction like "nonexistence exists". — 180 Proof

Ahh, I see what you're trying to do there. :smile:

Also, the only answer to the (ultimate) "why" question which does not precipitate an infinite regress is that There Is No Why. — 180 Proof

Ahh, that's quite interesting.

Is it even important to ask such questions? — chiknsld

They're "important to ask" only insofar as "such questions" yield more probative, precise, less speculative questions. — 180 Proof

Indeed, thank you for sharing.

Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction: it is asking for what existed without existence. Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being", and, consequently, it is not possible to actually posit the question "what is the predicate of existence": it can be uttered, but nevertheless references something causing something under the universal spatial (and "being") reference. Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence, but merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples"). And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique). — Bob Ross

That's very interesting, did you know that some Physicists are now trying to prove that time exists separately from space? This is in regards to your saying there's no such thing as "beyond space".

Very old, but quite relevant to what you are saying here:

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that of 4D (and positing it as apart of 3D), not that time is "separate" in the sense of time being truly separate from "space" altogether:

Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.

In terms of what I said in my post, I don't find anything wrong with positing time "in a 3D space".

Hypothetically (just in case I misunderstood the article), let's say they were arguing for a time which is "outside of space" (or "beyond space"), then I think it would be subject to the same critique I made in my original post.

It also depends on what you are referring to by "space". I am not considering it in the sense of "outer space", "string theory", "special relativity", etc (although they are really interesting and worthy considerations): I am referring to the universal spatial reference of everything (including "everything" itself"). Which I think physicists tend to be more interested in distinctions of "space" under the uniform, inevitable spatial reference (which, to be honest, I think they should be: they're profession is science not philosophy).

While this or that thing might come to exist, existence itself doesn't. Existence is predicated of things, not of predicates. SO we can write "chiknsld exists" and "people exist" but "existence exists" is ill-formed. It's similar to writing that democracy is democratic or Greeness is green.

I appreciate your response. Although I may just be misunderstanding the article you referenced, it seems as though they are disputing time being that of 4D (and positing it as apart of 3D), not that time is "separate" in the sense of time being truly separate from "space" altogether:

Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.

In terms of what I said in my post, I don't find anything wrong with positing time "in a 3D space".

Hypothetically (just in case I misunderstood the article), let's say they were arguing for a time which is "outside of space" (or "beyond space"), then I think it would be subject to the same critique I made in my original post.

It also depends on what you are referring to by "space". I am not considering it in the sense of "outer space", "string theory", "special relativity", etc (although they are really interesting and worthy considerations): I am referring to the universal spatial reference of everything (including "everything" itself"). Which I think physicists tend to be more interested in distinctions of "space" under the uniform, inevitable spatial reference (which, to be honest, I think they should be: they're profession is science not philosophy). — Bob Ross

Absolutely! You have it right, it's just that ever since Einstein described time as a fourth dimensional property, time was seen as something existing outside of the 3 dimensions we currently live in. :smile:

The article is merely stating that they are trying to prove that time can be used as a measurement within 3-d space. Nevertheless, time would still be separate from space whether in a fourth dimension or as a measurement.

I guess my larger point to your contention (Physics experiments aside :)) regarding notions of "nothing", and things that do not have a cause, self-creation, etc., is that such descriptions are actually possible. Just because something cannot exist does not mean it cannot be described.

Sure, we can accept that the universe was always here, but it will still lead to very difficult questions to be answered.

I'll give you one example:

It must be said that "nothing" is far easier than "something". For nothing to exist there is no friction, no energy that need be applied, no mathematics, no logic, no suffering, no agony, no dismay, no death and destruction, no moral arguments, no restitution nor justice. There needn't be any struggle for survival, betrayal, striving for immortality, fighting against the odds...there would merely be nothing. Nothing is far easier. It is the highest paradigm of Occam's razor.

Why need there be something when there can be nothing?

And yet, here we are in a vast, limitless universe. Certainly we are not here to just accept it all. I mean, plenty of people do, and that works out just fine for them. But to have a brain and be surrounded by countless inanimate matter, in an environment where we seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence, we are thus obligated to question how we got here and why.

Providing the sound principle of "Occam's razor" we must admit that something is far harder than nothing. And if this is not the case, then what is it that is stopping nothing from existing?

Are we proof that nothing cannot exist? If we are the power that defeats nothing then we must be the power that creates inquiry.

There's a logical difficulty that appears insurmountable in your question.

Given any answer, you wold be quite justified in asking why that answer, rather than some other. So for example if someone says that the universe was sneezed from the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure you might well ask where the Great Green Arkleseizure came from.

And that process applies to any answer you receive.

Like answering the proverbial three-year-old, eventually one ends up saying "just because'.

There's a logical difficulty that appears insurmountable in your question.

Given any answer, you wold be quite justified in asking why that answer, rather than some other. So for example if someone says that the universe was sneezed from the nose of Great Green Arkleseizure you might well ask where the Great Green Arkleseizure came from.

And that process applies to any answer you receive.

Like answering the proverbial three-year-old, eventually one ends up saying "just because'. — Banno

Banno, that is very true. Questions pertaining to existential origin are the hardest questions.

I'd go a step further and say that they are unanswerable; that they are non-questions. There simply are things that are taken as granted.

But much of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and much of religion, consists in attempting to provide inevitably wrong answers.

Better to be silent than to be wrong or to talk nonsense.

I'd go a step further and say that they are unanswerable; that they are non-questions. There simply are things that are taken as granted. — Banno

You think so?

But much of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and much of religion, consists in attempting to provide inevitably wrong answers.

Better to be silent than to be wrong or to talk nonsense. — Banno

That is certainly one way of looking at it. :)

Absolutely! You have it right, it's just that ever since Einstein described time as a fourth dimensional property, time was seen as something existing outside of the 3 dimensions we currently live in. :smile:

In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3D or within it), as my main point is that both postulations have no bearing on my assertion. They would both still be conjectures that are under the uniform spatial reference. It could very well be that I am missing something, so please feel free to point it out if you think I am misunderstanding (:

The article is merely stating that they are trying to prove that time can be used as a measurement within 3-d space. Nevertheless, time would still be separate from space whether in a fourth dimension or as a measurement.

Ah, so if it is indeed postulating that time is nevertheless "separate" from space in a fourth dimension or third, then I think it is subjected to the same exact critique. But to get into that, let me address the rest of your post.

I guess my larger point to your contention (Physics experiments aside :)) regarding notions of "nothing", and things that do not have a cause, self-creation, etc., is that such descriptions are actually possible.

Just because something cannot exist does not mean it cannot be described.

With regards to the second quote here, I actually (generally) agree: I may determine that, in hindsight, something that I thought was possible was actually impossible given the circumstances, and I nevertheless can describe them. However, I wouldn't quite agree with the first quote (which I think is in connection to the second): a predicate that contradicts its subject is describable only insofar as it demonstrates the contradiction itself. For example, a "circle that is square" only describes my ability to conceive of a "circle", a "square", and the joining of non-contradictory shapes (e.g. a square rectangle, two circles overlapping one another, etc). These three concepts are arranged in a particular order that produces a predicate that contradicts its subject (i.e. "circle is a square"): I take both concepts of the shapes and determine they are impossible. Moreover, more importantly, when I truly try to conceive of a "circle that is a square" I attempt to join the two shapes together, and given I can't, I never conceive of it. Now, I think what you are getting at (correct me if I am wrong), is that I nevertheless was able to describe what a circular square would be. To that I would agree only insofar as I am able to explicate the contradiction (and therefrom the three aforementioned concepts), but never what a "circular square" actually is. All I obtain, as described, is a "circle", a "square", and the joining to non-contradictory shapes. So I wouldn't completely disagree with you, but I wouldn't agree either.

Sure, we can accept that the universe was always here, but it will still lead to very difficult questions to be answered.

I would say that it depends on what you mean by "universe". Can we potentially explain the big bang? Or something else in the causal chain? Yes. If by "universe" you mean holistically all of "existence", then no. I think that causally speaking it is all a potential infinite. We are never going to get to a point where we can rest our heads and proclaim "we've find the first starting point!". All within the causal order is potentially infinite. So, I am not accepting that the universe was always here in the sense of an actual infinite but, rather, I would explain it in terms of a potential infinite. However, that potential infinite, if granted as the explanation, doesn't explain all of "existence", only merely that which is in the causal order.

It must be said that "nothing" is far easier than "something". For nothing to exist there is no friction, no energy that need be applied, no mathematics, no logic, no suffering, no agony, no dismay, no death and destruction, no moral arguments, no restitution nor justice. There needn't be any struggle for survival, betrayal, striving for immortality, fighting against the odds...there would merely be nothing. Nothing is far easier. It is the highest paradigm of Occam's razor.

Why need there be something when there can be nothing?

I understand what you are conveying here, and it is worthy question to ask. However, I would like to firstly disclaim that whether "nothing" is easier than "something" (which, as you are well aware, inevitably invokes Occam's razor) is a separate debate (albeit I am more than willing to participate). The only reason I say that is because it also has no bearing on what I was meaning to convey in my original post. Nothing, in terms of how you are using it in your example, is not "true nothingness", which is what I was trying to dispute. Your consideration is exactly in agreement (I think at least) with what I was saying: you are simply conceiving of "nothing" as the negation of all "things", which is the absent of all conceivable concepts. My original point was that that is not "nothing" in a pure sense (as it can't be postulated in a pure sense).

Anyways, back to what you were saying. I think that "nothing", in the sense of conceptualizing complete absence, is dependent on "something". For I would hold it is "something". If I conceptualize the negation (as you did) of all concepts, there's inevitably a spatial reference left over (i.e. no energy, no mathematics, etc are simply the conceptualization of something without that concept--such as something without mathematics). This hasn't "escaped", so to speak, the uniform spatial reference: to posit something as not there, I am referencing "a there". So, if what you mean by "nothing" is describable is that we can describe the negation of all concepts (in a potential infinite fashion), then I agree. However, I don't see how that negates what I am saying either. However, the problem with me saying "nothing" is "something" is that "nothing" would negate that "something" (it is a contradiction to claim that "nothing" is "something"), but my point is that the negation is this without that.

In terms of whether "nothing" is truly "easier" than "something", I am not so sure of that. Again, I don't think there is "nothing" without 'negating something'. Even stating "nothing without negating something" is utilizing the uniform spatial reference.

So when you ask "why is there something rather than nothing?", I think, holistically, you are asking "why is there something rather than the removal of concepts from my inevitable spatial reference?". But, in terms of causal order, we can ask a potential infinite of questions pertaining to why this was cause by that rather than that simply not causing this.

Certainly we are not here to just accept it all. I mean, plenty of people do, and that works out just fine for them. But to have a brain and be surrounded by countless inanimate matter, in an environment where we seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence, we are thus obligated to question how we got here and why.

I don't see how we are "certainly not here just to accept it all". However, I am not entirely sure what you are meaning by "accept it all". In terms of the causal order, we can most definitely try to explain why the universe is the way it is, or what caused the Big Bang, or something like that. However, the entirety of existence cannot be explained in that manner.

Providing the sound principle of "Occam's razor" we must admit that something is far harder than nothing.

As far as I understand his principle, it is "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", not that the simplest answer (or easier answer) is better. Also, I don't think that Occam's razor derives any sort of qualifications for comparing two theories in terms of complexity (in other words, Occam's razor speaks to if something rather than nothing is more complex than nothing without necessity, then we should hold that the latter is true over the former). Later, any arguments one may give for that actually being the case (something being harder than nothing) is an attempt to apply that rule (that there should actually be nothing). Otherwise, the razor itself simply points out that the belief that has minimal necessary specifications should supersede others. So, in other words, accepting Occam's razor does not necessitate that something is far harder than nothing (that's a separate argument, I would say).

And if this is not the case, then what is it that is stopping nothing from existing?

I see this no different than asking what is stopping a square circle from existing: it can't (not only that, but it can be only conceived of and described insofar as a contradiction, which wouldn't be what it would actually be).

If we are the power that defeats nothing then we must be the power that creates inquiry.

I am not sure how the impossibility of nothing necessitates that we create inquiry: how is that so?

Wonderful points (:, I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob

Disclaimer:

Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!

In terms of what we've been discussing (which it is a great discussion by the way!), I have no problem with either postulations (it being outside of 3D or within it), as my main point is that both postulations have no bearing on my assertion. — Bob Ross

It's truly my pleasure, your enthusiasm is a breath of fresh air. :)

They would both still be conjectures that are under the uniform spatial reference. It could very well be that I am missing something, so please feel free to point it out if you think I am misunderstanding (: — Bob Ross

Hmm, I do not think that you are missing anything at all, I do think that you may be splitting hairs just a tad bit, but honestly, it's probably a lack of proper explication on my part (I'll try to fix that if I can).

Briefly speaking, I would argue that there is no predicate to "existence" and to ask for one I think is a contradiction... — Bob Ross

Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).

...it is asking for what existed without existence... — Bob Ross

Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)

Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

Therefore, "existence was caused by nothing" is just as much of a logical contradiction as "existence was caused by something". — Bob Ross

Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.

As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.

You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).

And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by. I would assume it would be some sort of omniscient kind of entity or force. For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door. The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).

Nothing can be posited that isn't engulfed in the universal reference of "being"... — Bob Ross

This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.

Even "nothing" itself is referencing existence... — Bob Ross

"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.

...merely an existence most absent of all things (i.e. a spatial references with absolute minimal things contained in it). — Bob Ross

"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)

I can nor could I fathom whatever an "actual nothingness" would be because I am simply cogitating a concept of "nothingness" as without something (i.e. zero apples is simply a reference, still to existence, of something that can't be identified with "apples") — Bob Ross

Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)

Yes, I know its tricky.

And the reason I am able to even assert (and contemplate) "true nothingness" or "actual nothingness" is simply due to my ability to conceptually combine concepts together: "actual" implies that something isn't what I deem "fake", and when I concatenate that to "nothingness" (the absence of as much as fathomable) I get a false hope that I have somehow achieved some other concept than "nothingness" ("nothingness" as itself, apart from all illusions)(that I could "actually" conceive, even partially due to the very utterance, "nothing"). "Nothing itself" (just like "true nothingness") is no more than the concatenation of concepts that produces a fallacious belief in producing a new concept. For example, "what is outside of space?" produces an illusion that I have somehow achieved a question that suggests something beyond space, but really I have conjoined the concept of "space" with my concept of "outside" (which is spatially referencing). What really is being posited in "what is outside of space?" is a spatial framework under the universal spatial reference that may be distinct from yet another spatial framework (i.e. "outside"): thereby getting no closer to even fathoming anything beyond space (and "beyond space" is subject to the same critique) — Bob Ross

This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.

Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)

It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?

(Uh oh, I don't want to get you started..."It's not possible to conceptualize nothing because even the concept of nothing is still...") :snicker:

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you are saying. But you are letting your intuition stop you from learning about "nothing". Your goal should be to learn about it rather than to fight it. Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something. This allows us to understand everything there is to know about nothing. In fact, it is only "something" that can understand nothing in the first place. Nothing cannot understand itself, because it is nothing. :)

So, it is in fact our gift of being "something" that we may understand what "nothing" is. And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!

The predicate of existence: did it come from nothing, something else entirely, God? — chiknsld

Existence is not a predicate, this is a Meinongian view that has been rebuked very thoroughly by Frege and Russell. There is no distinction between an existing and a non-existing apple: "existence" really is just being.

Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate (re: criticism of Descartes' & Leibniz's ontological arguments for the existence of god). — 180 Proof

@Banno

Yep, that's what Kant claims, but is it true?

In predicate logic (Frege et al), existence can't be predicated to an object (vide infra).

John exists = $(\exists x)(x = j)$, not $Ej$ such that j = John and Ej = John exists. So far so good.

I 'm having difficulty translating the following statement into symbolic predicate logic.

All cows exist = $(\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex)$ such that Cx = x is a cow and Ex = x exists. As you can see I have to use existence as a predicate to translate "all cows exist" into symbolic predicate logic.

Too, there doesn't seem to be a problem in categorical logic (Aristotle) in treating existence as a predicate (vide infra).

All atoms exist = All atoms are existent things ("existent things" being a valid predicate).

The negation of "all cows exist" is "some cows don't exist" = $\neg(\forall x)(Cx \rightarrow Ex) = (\exists x)( Cx \land \neg Ex)$ (???)

Conclusion: In predicate logic existence can't be used as a predicate.


What's going on?

Yep, that's what Kant claims, but is it true? — Agent Smith

Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical.

Read K's argument (critique). It's meta-ontological, not merely logical or grammatical. — 180 Proof

The way I understood Kant's position on the matter is like this: If I were to say "x is all-good" (G1), it's the same thing as saying "x exists and x is all good" (G2). There being a predicate that's non-ontological (all-good) presupposes ontology (x exists).

An analogy: What's the difference between "god exists" and " 'god exists' is true"?

I still haven't really grasped Kant's point. Just offering an intuition (for correction).

You need a free logic to parse such an oddity. A free logic includes a first-order existential predicate: E!.

Note that "all cows exist" is not true; the cow that jumped over the moon does not exist.

What's happening? The logic is forcing us to be clear about what we mean when we say something exists - it is insisting on our being consistent.

Note also that, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. So it will not serve to show that, for example, god exists.

You need a free logic to parse such an oddity. A free logic includes a first-order existential predicate: E!.

Note that "all cows exist" is not true; the cow that jumped over the moon does not exist.

What's happening? The logic is forcing us to be clear about what we mean when we say something exists - it is insisting on our being consistent.

Note also that, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. So it will not serve to show that, for example, god exists. — Banno

:up: I'll look into it. You said some very important and interesting stuff. Thanks.

What I find most interesting is the human need to know or at least the need to ask questions.
It does not seem to matter how often humans make statements such as 'we can never know' or 'there is no answer,' or 'it is pointless to ask the question.' The questions that we cannot answer still have an 'existence' and as long as they do, someone will ask them. Saying 'that a particular question will NEVER be answered,' will NEVER be fully accepted because humans are convinced that 'time brings change.' So change gives hope of an answer 'in time.'
That is the human condition. Perhaps this is where individual contentment can be found.
Only if you can take your basic means of survival for granted and you have relatively good health of course. Then you might be able to just enjoy a life of thinking and doing and asking big complex questions that no one can currently answer and still be very happy and not die utterly mentally destroyed or completely mad because you couldn't answer the meaning of life the Universe and everything, with something more meaningful than 42.

Disclaimer:

Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!

I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would not be giving you nor your ideas the proper respect it deserves if I didn't. You can always expect this of me, and if I fall short then you have permission to slap me through the internet (:

That being said, I am going to respond in chronological order (I find it easier that way), but if that is an issue just let me know and I can try a different approach.

Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).

Yes, I think you are right here: I would be positing the combination of both.

Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)

Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)

I understand that it is silly, when posited in the manner I did, to ask such a question: but that is my point. When you state "Asking for a predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place", I think you are thereby conceding that whatever created existence exists prior to existence. Now, you may be referring to maybe a different underlying meaning for "existence" for the creator vs the creation (so two different meanings for "to exist"), but nevertheless they would both be underneath the universal "being" reference (but you talk about this later on, so more on that later).

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

I am not sure how in depth to explicate here (so feel free to inquire more in you would like), but I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"), which, for me, has no relation "the external world" specifically. My imaginations exist. My thoughts exist. However, it exists only insofar as it is not contradicted. For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn, but does not exist as a concreto in "the external world". Still exists, just abstractly. I think we (as in humanity) like to make meaningful distinctions between a unicorn "existing" in the sense of in my head and in the so called "real world", but both are engulfed by the ever present, unescapable "existence". Colloquially, for example, people may argue that "unicorns don't exist"; however, as you are probably already gathering, I would say that they are referring to a concept of "existence" under the holistic concept of existence. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.

This is just a side note, but I honestly don't think Physicists (for example, Lawrence Krauss) are actually referring to "true nothingness", but an altered version (especially in Krauss' case: he just can't seem to grasp that he isn't solving the philosophical dilemma pertaining to such because he is not defining nothing in the same manner).

As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.

Very interesting! I don't think, as of now, I agree (I don't think it is a conflation). It may be, however, that we aren't referring to the same "logic" (semantically), but if something is non-logical it is illogical. In turn, something that is illogical is irrational. But to dive into that, let's take your example:

You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).

You know me too well already (that's another debate) (:. But all joking aside, I first want to explicate back to you what I think you mean by "illogical" vs "non-logical" (so you can correct me if I am wrong). "illogical" is that which is violated during the process of "logical inquiry", whereas "non-logical", which is where I am not clearly seeing the definition, is when something doesn't directly violate "logic" but, rather, is simply something that lacks "logic" altogether. Did I understand that correctly?

I think that (to keep it brief) something is "logical" if it is not contradicted and something is "illogical" if it is contradicted. "non-logic", in the sense of an absence of "logic", is subject to the same critique as before: it is only our logical derivation of what the negation of logic would be. Maybe if you explain it in further detail I can respond more adequately, but I don't see when something could be non-logical.

In terms of solipsism, I want to separate two claims that are typically made therein: we have no good reasons to believe other people are subjects and we are the only subject. The former I have no problem with (and actually agree), the latter is a leap (a giant leap). The latter is where solipsists get into trouble, and that's where the contradictions arise. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you are positing solipsism as an example of something we don't hold, but nevertheless can't be dis-proven (logically): it is dis-proven in the sense of the latter, and proven in the sense of the former. I genuinely don't see how anything pertaining to such was "non-logical".

And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by.

So when I speak of something never surpassing the universal being, spatial, and temporal references, I don't mean "physics". I am perfectly fine, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with you that such a being (if they exist) would have to transcend physics (I don't hold that "physics" or "laws of nature" are synonymous with "logic").

For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door.

If what you mean by this is "physics will fly out the door", then I agree. I do not hold that "logic" flies out the door, as it is utilized to derive everything (including "everything" itself). There's never a point at which I can conclude that I've derived a situation where the principle of noncontradiction is false, because even if I could do that it would be contingent on the principle of noncontradiction in the first place (i.e. this hypothetical situation where pon is false, is contingent on me utilizing that very principle to derive it in the first place).

The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).

I hate to be reiterative, but it blurs lines, I would say, because it is contradictory (albeit not self-evidently contradictory).

This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.

I think that we are utilizing "logic" differently. I have no problem, for all intents and purposes, conceding that an "omniscient entity" would not need to abide by the rules of our physics, because I don't hold "physics" as synonymous with "logic". Imagination abides by logic (I know, it may sound crazy). That doesn't mean that my imagination abides by physics (it definitely doesn't: I can fly on my imagined earth).

"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.

"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)

Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)

This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.

Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)

It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?

I think you are agreeing with me that we cannot conceptualize or fathom "nothing". However, I think you are stilling positing that it somehow exists apart from existence. Would you agree that "nothing" is simply the potential infinite of "deleting" concepts? My point is that that potential infinite would merely, at best, approach the limit of "nothing", and I feel like you are agreeing with me on that. However, that previous sentence is partially wrong, there is no "actual nothing" that is apart from "nothing" as a potential infinite of removals (we aren't approaching "true nothingness").

Likewise, the process of achieving a potential infinite of removals is simply the removal of something from space. That is what I mean by nothing being spatially referenced. Obviously nothing would negate "space": but would it? No. It would negate a conception of a spatial framework under the uniform space. Every attempt to negate "space" would follow that pattern for a potential infinite of times. Do you agree with me on that?

So, to recap, to say that one gets decent at understanding nothing by practicing the deletion of concepts, that is all "nothing" is. There's no "actual nothing" that we are approaching the limit of when we perform such actions.

Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something.

I don't have a problem exploring the practice of the absence (in a potential infinite fashion) of concepts. My point is that "nothing" in the sense of a potential infinite is not the same as positing a "complete negation of everything": that is attempting to achieve something which doesn't exist (an actual infinite of removals). That is recognizing the potential infinite of removals and leaping (in my opinion) to the idea that we are moving towards (approaching in a limit style) "true nothingness".

And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!

Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion: I agree that we, as something, can explore the concept of a potential infinite of removals, but that's not "true nothing" in the sense of an actual infinite of removals. I would refurbish "true nothing" as simply the former and deny the latter.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob

Disclaimer:

Bob, this was a very long post. Please make sure to read to the end before starting your response. I think that once you read the post in full, you will see that I cleared up all the confusion. Thanks!

I appreciate the disclaimer, but I would like to assure you that I will always read your posts in their entirety before making any assertions: I would not be giving you nor your ideas the proper respect it deserves if I didn't. You can always expect this of me, and if I fall short then you have permission to slap me through the internet (:

That being said, I am going to respond in chronological order (I find it easier that way), but if that is an issue just let me know and I can try a different approach.

Well, if there is no predicate for existence that is certainly one thing. If it is a contradiction to ask the question that would be another thing. And of course it could be both as well, hehe (3 options you are alluding to).

Yes, I think you are right here: I would be positing the combination of both.

Hmm, not exactly. You see, you are creating a trap for yourself. When you say that something existed without existing, that would merely be an oxymoron. I would not be so silly as to ask a question that was merely an oxymoron. :)

Asking for the predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place. I suppose to you, that sounds the same as "what existed without existence". :)

I understand that it is silly, when posited in the manner I did, to ask such a question: but that is my point. When you state "Asking for a predicate of existence is asking what created existence in the first place", I think you are thereby conceding that whatever created existence exists prior to existence. Now, you may be referring to maybe a different underlying meaning for "existence" for the creator vs the creation (so two different meanings for "to exist"), but nevertheless they would both be underneath the universal "being" reference (but you talk about this later on, so more on that later).

Let me ask you a question, what does "existence" mean to you?

I am not sure how in depth to explicate here (so feel free to inquire more in you would like), but I would consider "existence" as "to be" (or "being"), which, for me, has no relation "the external world" specifically. My imaginations exist. My thoughts exist. However, it exists only insofar as it is not contradicted. For example, a unicorn that I imagined in my mind exists as an imagined unicorn, but does not exist as a concreto in "the external world". Still exists, just abstractly. I think we (as in humanity) like to make meaningful distinctions between a unicorn "existing" in the sense of in my head and in the so called "real world", but both are engulfed by the ever present, unescapable "existence". Colloquially, for example, people may argue that "unicorns don't exist"; however, as you are probably already gathering, I would say that they are referring to a concept of "existence" under the holistic concept of existence. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

Well, on the surface of it, it would seem that "nothing" creating anything other than "nothing" is an oxymoron, indeed. :) Nevertheless, there are Physicists who believe that this is what happened.

This is just a side note, but I honestly don't think Physicists (for example, Lawrence Krauss) are actually referring to "true nothingness", but an altered version (especially in Krauss' case: he just can't seem to grasp that he isn't solving the philosophical dilemma pertaining to such because he is not defining nothing in the same manner).

As far as something causing existence...I think you're getting too caught up on what is considered to be logical, versus illogical, non-logical, etc. It does appear as well, that you conflate non-logic as being synonymous with illogic. Something could be non-logical and that does not automatically entail that it is illogical.

Very interesting! I don't think, as of now, I agree (I don't think it is a conflation). It may be, however, that we aren't referring to the same "logic" (semantically), but if something is non-logical it is illogical. In turn, something that is illogical is irrational. But to dive into that, let's take your example:

You do realize that first of all, the universe could be illogical, right (or non-logical)? For all intents and purposes we can't even disprove a solipsistic existence (no, I am not advocating for solipsism, I can already see you saying, "that's another debate" :)).

You know me too well already (that's another debate) (:. But all joking aside, I first want to explicate back to you what I think you mean by "illogical" vs "non-logical" (so you can correct me if I am wrong). "illogical" is that which is violated during the process of "logical inquiry", whereas "non-logical", which is where I am not clearly seeing the definition, is when something doesn't directly violate "logic" but, rather, is simply something that lacks "logic" altogether. Did I understand that correctly?

I think that (to keep it brief) something is "logical" if it is not contradicted and something is "illogical" if it is contradicted. "non-logic", in the sense of an absence of "logic", is subject to the same critique as before: it is only our logical derivation of what the negation of logic would be. Maybe if you explain it in further detail I can respond more adequately, but I don't see when something could be non-logical.

In terms of solipsism, I want to separate two claims that are typically made therein: we have no good reasons to believe other people are subjects and we are the only subject. The former I have no problem with (and actually agree), the latter is a leap (a giant leap). The latter is where solipsists get into trouble, and that's where the contradictions arise. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you are positing solipsism as an example of something we don't hold, but nevertheless can't be dis-proven (logically): it is dis-proven in the sense of the latter, and proven in the sense of the former. I genuinely don't see how anything pertaining to such was "non-logical".

And whatever did create the universe would obviously have to surpass the normal laws of Physics that we abide by.

So when I speak of something never surpassing the universal being, spatial, and temporal references, I don't mean "physics". I am perfectly fine, for all intents and purposes, agreeing with you that such a being (if they exist) would have to transcend physics (I don't hold that "physics" or "laws of nature" are synonymous with "logic").

For a lot of what this question asks, logic will totally fly out the door.

If what you mean by this is "physics will fly out the door", then I agree. I do not hold that "logic" flies out the door, as it is utilized to derive everything (including "everything" itself). There's never a point at which I can conclude that I've derived a situation where the principle of noncontradiction is false, because even if I could do that it would be contingent on the principle of noncontradiction in the first place (i.e. this hypothetical situation where pon is false, is contingent on me utilizing that very principle to derive it in the first place).

The art of this is to properly identify what is the most rational line of logic, if any, that we can apply to it. But do not forget that the very question will blur the lines of reality (since we are asking for the origin of reality itself).

I hate to be reiterative, but it blurs lines, I would say, because it is contradictory (albeit not self-evidently contradictory).

This is simply not true. An omniscient entity need not abide by the rules of our physics. The possibilities are as far as the imagination can go.

I think that we are utilizing "logic" differently. I have no problem, for all intents and purposes, conceding that an "omniscient entity" would not need to abide by the rules of our physics, because I don't hold "physics" as synonymous with "logic". Imagination abides by logic (I know, it may sound crazy). That doesn't mean that my imagination abides by physics (it definitely doesn't: I can fly on my imagined earth).

"Nothing" does not reference existence. Nothing is the complete opposite of that. "Nothingness" has no reference in the first place.

"Nothing" is not an existence. Nothing would be the complete opposite of that. Nothing is not a spatial reference. Nothing has no reference in the first place. The more you try to describe nothing, the less it is the true idea of nothing :)

Well, we are "something" so it is very hard to conceptualize "nothing". As you are saying, whatever concept you have, it will be of "something". That's how you know what nothing is (it's the exact opposite). Do you see how that works? :)

This is merely more of the same. The key to understanding "nothing" again, is not to envision the "combination of concepts" as you say, but rather, the deletion of them. When you get good at conceptualizing the "absence", then you will have a decent understanding of nothing.

Sure, it is ultimately impossible to conceptualize nothing, but that is exactly what you need to understand. :)

It's the exact opposite of everything you know. The more you fight it, the less it is "nothing". Embrace the "absence". Btw, do you know what would happen if you could actually conceptualize "nothingness"?

I think you are agreeing with me that we cannot conceptualize or fathom "nothing". However, I think you are stilling positing that it somehow exists apart from existence. Would you agree that "nothing" is simply the potential infinite of "deleting" concepts? My point is that that potential infinite would merely, at best, approach the limit of "nothing", and I feel like you are agreeing with me on that. However, that previous sentence is partially wrong, there is no "actual nothing" that is apart from "nothing" as a potential infinite of removals (we aren't approaching "true nothingness").

Likewise, the process of achieving a potential infinite of removals is simply the removal of something from space. That is what I mean by nothing being spatially referenced. Obviously nothing would negate "space": but would it? No. It would negate a conception of a spatial framework under the uniform space. Every attempt to negate "space" would follow that pattern for a potential infinite of times. Do you agree with me on that?

So, to recap, to say that one gets decent at understanding nothing by practicing the deletion of concepts, that is all "nothing" is. There's no "actual nothing" that we are approaching the limit of when we perform such actions.

Where you make your mistake is in assuming that because we are "something" that we cannot learn about "nothing". But we can; nothing is the complete negation of everything that we know to be something.

I don't have a problem exploring the practice of the absence (in a potential infinite fashion) of concepts. My point is that "nothing" in the sense of a potential infinite is not the same as positing a "complete negation of everything": that is attempting to achieve something which doesn't exist (an actual infinite of removals). That is recognizing the potential infinite of removals and leaping (in my opinion) to the idea that we are moving towards (approaching in a limit style) "true nothingness".

And here you are telling me that we cannot understand nothing. We are the only ones that can! Because we are something!

Hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion: I agree that we, as something, can explore the concept of a potential infinite of removals, but that's not "true nothing" in the sense of an actual infinite of removals. I would refurbish "true nothing" as simply the former and deny the latter.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Bob — Bob Ross

Hi Bob! :smile:

Okay, so at this point I'd like to take just a small step back, and really try to understand what your contention is with the question regarding the op.

In summary: I ask of the audience, what do you think, if any, is the predicate of existence?

In summary: You are saying that the question is illogical?

You are saying that there cannot be a predicate of existence because any answer would entail existence itself? Thus, it would be a contradiction?

I suppose what I do not understand is, why is it useful to you, to say that the question is illogical? This question, is directly coupled with the following observation...

In the op, I offer another option, instead of saying that there is a predicate of existence, you could say that existence was always here.

Are you saying that existence was always here? Or are you only saying that the question is illogical, but ignoring (I do not mean this in an accusatory sense!) the option of an eternal universe?

At this point your entire response seems to be a contention of the question, but I would like to know, are you saying that the universe is eternal? Do you even believe that we are in a universe?

I have no problem addressing your contentions, but I just want to make sure I first have an answer to the question of the op, unless that is, you are saying that the universe is neither eternal, nor is there a predicate (because that is illogical to you)...I am trying to figure out exactly what your answer is or other possibilities you think there are that were not already offered in the op.

I apologize if my responses were confusing, let me try to explain it more proficiently.

You are saying that there cannot be a predicate of existence because any answer would entail existence itself? Thus, it would be a contradiction?

So, as you previously pointed out, I am making two claims: (1) "existence" is not a valid predicate, and (2) "existence" has no valid predicates. In terms of #1, I think you are already understanding what that means (but, as always, I could be utterly wrong on that, so feel free to inquire further if you want). In terms of #2, I don't think there are any valid predicates to "existence": it is essentially a priori (or transcendental), which is necessarily presupposed in every manifestation of reason.

For example, any predicate offered for "existence" necessarily presupposes existence itself: existence is X, became X, was X, was caused by X, etc. is, became, etc references existence as its a priori presupposition.

In the op, I offer another option, instead of saying that there is a predicate of existence, you could say that existence was always here.

I may be misunderstanding you, but my critique here is that I don't think what you are offering truly is an alternative to a predicate of existence. To say "existence was always here" has a predicate (which is in bold). I'm not sure how that is separate solution from "a predicate of existence" (they are both predicates). If I say "existence was caused by X" or "existence has always been here", they both produce the same contradiction (as they are both predicates of existence).

I suppose what I do not understand is, why is it useful to you, to say that the question is illogical?

Are you saying that existence was always here? Or are you only saying that the question is illogical, but ignoring (I do not mean this in an accusatory sense!) the option of an eternal universe?

This is fair, my contention has been with the question itself. But in this case, although I understand how disappointing this is going to sound, the question is invalid (so I don't think there is a solution). If I asked you "how far can I throw a square circle?", you can't provide a valid answer because it is not a valid question (albeit enticing of a question). So if I am right (emphasis on if), then the question cannot be answered in a valid manner, because it is an invalid question. It would entail that it is a wasted effort to try and discover the answer to "what color is a triangular rectangle?" ("existence was caused by X"--was caused by X is a predicate which presupposes existence).

Now, I don't want to completely disappoint you: we can ask mind-boggling, thought-provoking questions pertaining to what pertains under the apodictically true references of our manifestations of reason (such as where did the "universe" come from). But existence in its entirety, is simply the ever referenced (a priori if you will) aspect of our reason. In terms of the universe (if posited as dis-synonymous with "existence" in its entirety), I think that it is a potential infinite: that would be my explanation. Zoom out, zoom in, go forward, go back, etc it will always be a potential infinite.

Does that help?

Bob