Redefining the universe as a loop is neat. It answers where the universe came from at each single point

But if we redefine the universe, I think it is then reasonable to redefine the question: from "Why the universe?", to "Why the loop?"

For instance we can define the chicken in terms of the egg, and the egg in terms of the chicken. This _does_ answer a lot of questions. And we can even attempt to throw away the base of that recursion maybe by using a continuum, a loop, or maybe even infinity(?)

Which would be very neat. If I were to ask why that whole loop exists; we could say there is a loop of loops, or even an ad infinitium loop of loops of loops. But at each stage we can generalize to say we are answering the question X with "Because f(X)". You (in my opinion) have made f very small. Which is good. But if we ever truly remove f, then we are left with "Why X? Because X." Which is an unhelpful truism. "Why the chicken? Because the chicken."

So I guess that every argument needs to be based on un-proven axioms. I.e. mathematics is based on a small set of axioms. You can choose which axioms. But I've never seen someone manage to remove all axioms

So why is viewpoint no1 different (in my opinion)?

In a sense I agree with you that it isn't

To loosely quote Einstein (according to the internet): "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them"

I think the bible makes this same point on several occasions -- that the universe does not define God, and values based on this universe do not contain him

So any answer needs to step up. For instance: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus uses several analogies at that point (John3) including the famous one of being born again. Since that is similar to the chicken and egg or universe loop, let me include an excerpt: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’"

> Or: sorry if I offend you: A human wrote those words and passed them on as being God?

Nice. You are very polite. If you offended I think the implication is I am reacting to a hole being poked in my beliefs. In which case I appreciate you poking more

Like mathematics I can move my axioms such as onto personal experience, logical evidence, the bible, or direct revelation

The standard Christian view point is, as you say, that humans _did_ write those words, pass them off as being from God, and gave their best as to what they percieved God was

They call it divine inspiration. I can understand the incredule response. But I think to engage with viewpoint no1, it is necessary to allow the bible, since from the axiom of the bible it is trivial to explain why the universe exists, and from the axiom of God creating the universe it is not a stretch to reach the bible

But I would agree with you that I am entering the same chicken and egg issue here. I have simply proved one in terms of the other, and there are still unanswered questions as to the whole

But maybe I am missing something?

If there is no time, then the arrow of causality is lost. So there is probably no 'Why' 'How' or 'When'. So the question of why the universe exists is presumably answered by the question becoming null and void

I assume that if this reasonably voids the unanswered causality of the universe, then it also voids the unanswered causality of God?

And if so, I suggest to explain the existence of the universe this ways depends on something outside of time and outside of the universe and capable of a massive creative act

And you can predict my one track mind: this explanation of existence logically depends on God, or at least something with very God like abilities

This might be why God describes himself as "I AM who I AM." He is invoking this lack of causality outside of time. He simply is

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, and sorry if I haven't explained myself well

So please keep it up!

And don't be held back by me not finding an answer that fits what you seek!

The only further things I could share might be some surprizing self-consistent elements or implications of viewpoint no1

Alternatively we could say some questions simply don't have knowable answers (NP=P or the halting problem anyone?)

But the world will be a much worse place if you let anything I've said hold you back. The question you ask is, I think, worth more than one lifetime

It would reduce complexity AND allow for a self-proving belief system. Who wouldn't want that? Could you even use it as a logic device to prove other properties?

Can we think of any examples of this kind of system? That might help us search for one that encompases the universe: Is there anything either truly fully self-contained, self-creating, self-descriptive, or fully self-anything?

For instance the Earth is very self-contained, but depends on sun light

A black hole is very self contained but still communicates via Hawking radiation

Self-creating head butts against the second law of thermodynamics -- that randomness or entropy always increases in a closed system. This law sadly implies we will have to reach outside the universe if we want to be self-consistent....

Edit: Outside of that are there any thought processes that are fully self-X, would visual illusions count, such as Escher drawing the world folding in on itself?

Maybe we can say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't globally apply, and the universe is an aberration within that system. But that is beginning to push outside the box of self-consistency

Sorry, I'm becoming stuck. Outside of paradoxes and unbalanced equations I can only think of one answer

Edit2: Oooh, in your favor is the effectively infinite amount of possibilities, which gives a lot of hope for finding other self-consistent systems. Since I'm not sure I can disprove their existence any better than as previously when defining self-consistency as 'X = X' and then suggesting this definition is an unhelpful truism

But I realize that is possibly not fair 'x = y+3' is not a truism; but then it is also not self-consistent. Maybe I am setting too high a bar?

---

I can't do better than repeat what Chris said:

> You’re ambitious, which is great. You’re respectful, even greater

On the negative side, the evidence against self-consistent systems as real, active objects is strong enough, that I'm afraid I believe we can basically say they don't exist in this universe (Can talk about this later)

On the positive side we can say you have already proven self-consistent systems possible in terms of data! As in you have thought of the concept and expressed it. This is in itself proof that it can already exist as a static object -- or data

Pure data does not experience causality, and we can describe the universe as pure data. Although all our experience suggests there is causality, we also cannot prove it is not an illusion. Like a video tape seems to have causality when you play it, but actually it is a static object

If we view the universe as simply a video tape. Then we can say the universe simply IS; in a similar way to how we said God simply IS. Sure there are still unanswered questions, and to me, to say "God simply IS" seems cleaner; but at least we have an alternative self-consistent answer

I think the problem with this answer mostly comes if we want to put the video in a video player, saying that we are not just a static picture, and our experience of time is real...

Think of it like a computer program. The program data can say "I am self-consistent!" -- okay buddy, we agree with you, and I can even run the program. The computer then effectively brings the program to life. It's interesting to see that context switches means the program is stopped and saved as data while other programs run; but the program is unaware of this; to its perspective it asks for the clock time, and the time always updates. We can say the program thinks it is alive and has causality and even believes it is self consistent

The problem here is that we also have a computer or video player in the mix, and even if the program pretends otherwise, I think we can prove that no computer can remain self-consistent. For instance they require electrical input in order to run

To solve this, we could place the computer outside the universe and allow it to run by different rules than exist within the universe. But at this point we have again created something God like: the closest bible verse might be "For in him we live and move and have our being"

---

So we've found a solution by removing time from the universe. Another commenter posted what I believe is an equally valid solution; that life is meaningless; nihilism; the universe equates to zero

Zero has got to be pretty self-consistent, and it resolves the question of why the universe exists in the same way as our solution: by making the question meaningless

Note the repetition here, we've removed God, and the answers we are finding are subtractive from how we would of hoped to describe the universe

This suggests there may be some more subtractive answers, and it interestingly is also suggestive of a match we find in mathematics

I know we've already covered maths, but lets do it again: We are trying to describe the whole universe, just using the universe. I.e. self-consistent. I.e. defining something purely in terms of itself. This definition may be very complex. But ultimately it must boil down to 'x = x'. This is really the definition of being self-defining

Similar equations that match this would be '0 = 0', i.e. nihilism. Or 'fancy_thing = fancy_thing', i.e. the universe is static and does not contain causality (which is our video tape solution)

Earlier we had considered a looping universe. I.e. 'looping(universe)', i.e. 'f(X)'. Which neatly and cleanly defined X, but left f undefined. But it seems that mathematics _requires_ undefined elements (axioms) to provide meaning. If we imagine those axioms were to become defined by that self same piece of mathematics, then the maths must reduce to 'self = self'. Adding a loop gives us 'loop(self) = loop(self)'. These equations are self-consistent, but not meaningful. I.e. "Why does the universe exist? Because the universe exists"

That is a pretty fascinating suggestion in itself!!! That having meaning requires something to be left undefined!!

And the suggestion seems to hold: it explains why viewpoint no2 of the universe being caused by a wave function really fails to define anything; and it explains why all mathematics uses axioms

It would be really interesting to consider this further. But one easy conclusion is that if I were a mathematician with no evidence of God, I would still conclude at a minimum:

-- To have meaning, or to provide a full definition for anything; we're going to have to step outside the rules of the universe

-- Or to put it another way; the universe cannot fully describe itself

---

I wouldn't consider that conclusive just because I make mistakes, but two other ways we can reach the same conclusion would be the second law of thermodynamics, or considering this universe does not allow us to create something out of nothing (the first law of thermodynamics)

Creating something out of nothing is really the same as what we covered above by a different name. It is equivalent to 'self = still self but something extra aswell'. In this universe that something extra needs to come from an external source. But including that source in the equation takes us back to 'self = self'

A THRID WAY

Last night I was wondering what a self-consistent system would look like: at it's simplest it would not send out anything, and it would not receive anything. If it did, then its contents would change and it would no-longer be self-consistent. Such a system would be completely invisible to us

A more complex self-consistent system could break the laws of physics to create something from nothing, and emit say light into the rest of the universe. An even more complex system could interact with the universe but then it would need to break more laws. For us to associate its inputs with its outputs but remain self-consistent: at a minimum it would need to bend to our laws of time, but still be outside time itself. A simpler, but still law breaking requirement would be just to provide outputs at any point in time at all (since it cannot be self-consistent and within time)

My conclusion from that was a simple self-consistent system must be completely outside of our experience; effectively null or zero to us, and so not conceivable and not relevant. Or a complex self-consistent system we can comprehend is going to break so many laws of the universe that we cannot conceive of it based on our current laws

((Which fits with earlier verses, or for instance: "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit"))

---

> You seem to be in the camp of attributing God to being beyond causality: beyond physical or mathematical laws

But he also chooses to bend to our physical and mathematical laws in order to make himself known

This means that we can evaluate him as a complex self-consistent system. One that provides:

> A way to explain existence with having causality, information, and logic tied in and no 'magic' happening behind the scenes

I could start to share reasons why I think this is a sensible viewpoint. But that would start us down a whole new avenue

---

Thanks for the ride. I didn't expect it to be so biblically validating

I certainly appreciate your generous comments! I realize it's not your goal to pick holes. But please reply with as many holes as you have. It will help us both find better answers

We can use a loop to say life creates life. But the universe tells us this still began somewhere, and will eventually end somewhere

From big bang to eventual universal heat death dissipation. No physical object we know of can avoid its eventual disintegration

For every object in the universe; to describe its birth and death we need to refer to something outside of the object -- at least if we want to say either event is meaningful, or to provide some consistency beyond the object itself

Since this applies to every object within the universe, it seems reasonable to apply this to the universe aswell

From there we can again say that explaining the universe requires something outside the rules of the universe

For us to have any testable theory about this thing; we will also need to say it continues to interact with the universe. Anything else gives us no evidence to prove or disprove

Invoking pure simulations, random chance, or meaningless; are maybe valid explanations; but they don't give us any way to test themselves

We _have_ to show that something, somewhere is breaking the laws of the simulation!! Otherwise, if not, then there is no reason to say it is not just the simulation itself