Reality doesn't need an explanation. It exists as a brute fact.


 * ..."Explanation" is identical to "structure". In order to fully specify the structure of a system, one must explain why its aspects and components are related in certain ways (as opposed to other possible ways). If one cannot explain this, then one is unable to determine the truth values of certain higher-order relations without which structure cannot be fully specified. On the other hand, if one claims that some of these higher-order structural components are "absolutely inexplicable", then one is saying that they do not exist, and thus that the systemic structure is absolutely incomplete. Since this would destroy the system's identity, its stability, and its ability to function, it is belied by the system's very existence.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20020619055514/http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Discussions/CTMUForum.html


 * One might at first be tempted to object that there is no reason to believe that the universe does not simply "exist", and thus that self-selection is unnecessary. However, this is not a valid position. First, it involves a more or less subtle appeal to something external to the universe, namely a prior/external informational medium or "syntax" of existence; if such a syntax were sufficiently relevant to this reality, i.e. sufficiently real, to support its existence, then it would be analytically included in reality (as defined up to perceptual relevance). Second, active self-selection is indeed necessary, for existence is not merely a state but a process; the universe must internally distinguish that which it is from that which it is not, and passivity is ruled out because it would again imply the involvement of a complementary active principle of external origin.


 * Reality comprises a "closed descriptive manifold" from which no essential predicate is omitted, and which thus contains no critical gap that leaves any essential aspect of structure unexplained. Any such gap would imply non-closure...MAP requires a closed-form explanation on the grounds that distinguishability is impossible without it. Again this comes down to the issue of syntactic stability*. To state it in as simple a way as possible, reality must ultimately possess a stable 2-valued object-level distinction between that which it is and that which it is not, maintaining the necessary informational boundaries between objects, attributes and events. The existence of closed informational boundaries within a system is ultimately possible only by virtue of systemic closure under dualistic (explanans-explanandum) composition, which is just how it is effected in sentential logic.

*: A syndiffeonic regress ultimately leads to a stable closed syntax in which all terms are mutually defined; mutual definition is what stabilizes and lends internal determinacy (internal identifiability of events) to the system through syntactic symmetry