> Btw. The statement "there is something, so there was something" can
> be logically accepted only if preceded with "the whole world is the
> closed system". Can you accept this statement? Closed from what? From outside world?

     The proof says the following.
     Objects are defined by their Object Quality Set, (their nature).
     Nothings have an empty Object Quality Set.  Somethings have a non
empty Object Quality Set.
     The Object Quality Set contains qualities that describe the object.
     Qualities can be either Qualities of Being or Qualities of

     A Quality of Being is a quality the object has alone and exists
independent of its relation to any other object.
     Existence is a quality of being.  Dimensionality might be another,
whether it was 3D, 4D etc.

     A Quality of Relation is a quality the object has by virtue of its
relation to other objects.
     Next to, bigger than, cause of, came from, used for etc are
qualities of relation.

     Many qualities that sound like qualities of being are in fact
qualities of relation.
     Being red as a physical quality, for example is actually a causal
relation between the object and light waves, such that it reflects red
light and absorbs all other colors.  Reflects and absorbs are forms of
'cause of'.
     Being red as a conscious picture however is a true Quality
of Being.  You don't see your conscious color forms with light waves!

     Physical universe mass is another quality often taken to be a
quality of being, but is in fact measured by force from an external
object so is really only knowable through causal relation.  One however
might rightly assert that the object has mass alone even when it isn't
being measured per se.
     All Learning by Looking at Effects in the physical universe is
through causal relation.  If there is no causal relation between A and
B, B can not learn about A.
     This immediately implies that B can not learn about the Qualities
of Being of A, unless those Qualities of Being of A affect the causal
Qualities of Relation that A exerts over B.  The Qualities of Being of A
in any case are at best logically derived back from the causal Qualities
of Relation of A as any Quality of Being of A can not be directly
observed by B using Learning by Looking at Effects.

     Learning by looking at effects is the only mechanism for learning
available to B if B and A are separated by a real space time distance.
     Notice since the conscious unit CAN learn about the Qualities of
Being of its own conscious color forms (redness), that therefore the
conscious unit is not Learning by Looking at Effects, but is Learning by
Looking at Cause, and therefore can not be learning about its color
forms across a distance.
     Thus inside of consciousness, the Learner and the Learned About
must be one and the same object.

     Qualities of Relation between B and A imply at least one Quality of
Being in both related objects, namely that they exist.
     One assumes that if A can effect B and visa versa, then both A and
B have other qualities of being that give rise to the causal relations
between them.  Learning by Looking at Effects is the effort of B to
learn about A's other Qualities of Being via experiencing the effects of
A's causal Quality of Relations on B.
     Any Qualities of Being of A that do not affect A's causal Qualities
of Relation to B, can not be learned about by B by Learning by Looking
at Effects.

     If *NO* Qualities of Being in A affect its causal Qualities of
Relation to B, then B can not learn *ANYTHING* about A, including
whether it exists or not.

     One can exist alone, but one can not be in relation alone.

     Therefore aloneness is a Quality of Being, and unaloneness is a
Quality of Relation.
     The All That Is is by definition alone, as anything outside of it,
different from it, would mean that it wasn't the All That Is.
     Therefore if one considers All That Is, it must be alone with
nothing outside of it.

     Thus 'the world' is a closed system, and therefore, as you say, if
something exists now, something must have always existed.
     It is a perfect certainty that something exists now, therefore
something is eternal *IF* one accepts the intuitive idea that
something can not come from absolute nothing as defined above.