Some thoughts:

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