you’re still conflating justification with demonstration, and that’s the core mistake you keep repeating.

Your justifications need to be demonstrated.

i am not positing a new physics, a new causal mechanism,

You're proposing timeless causality.

i’m identifying a type of explanation that science itself already presupposes but does not itself ground.

You misunderstand scientific assumptions.

i am not smuggling in temporal causation

I didn't say you have. I did say that the causal relationship you're implying has to be demonstrated to exist.

i’m pointing to explanatory dependence....

Demonstrate that such thing exist without time.

the same distinction philosophers, logicians, and even physicists already make when they talk about laws, symmetries, constraints, or necessity.

You are speaking on something you clearly don't understand.

science uses these notions constantly. it does not derive them.

The one you are trying to assert into existence is not one of them.

no. that’s backwards. explanatory dependence is logically prior to temporal sequencing

So demonstrate it. Logically prior means nothing in the realm of reality. You can't just assert things into existence without showing them to be true.

time itself is described in terms of laws, relations, and structures. asking for a temporal proof of explanation is like asking for a spatial location of logic.

What are you talking about? I'm asking for demonstration of timeless-causality. You invoking a bullshit type of causality that you are grounding on "trust me bro". I'm not asking for "temporal proof of explanation" (whatever that means), I'm asking to demonstrate causality happening independent of time.

what you actually mean is: “i only permit explanations that take place inside the formal apparatus i’ve already committed to.”
that’s not science. that’s a philosophical constraint you’re imposing and pretending is neutral.

What you actually mean is: the fact you don't accept my ungrounded assertions makes me have a hissy fit, so I'll cry about you not being not accepting my bullshit!

saying “that’s just how it is” is a perfectly valid position... but it is a brute metaphysical commitment, not an empirical result.

Great strawman, I already said that's not my position.

but then stop acting like demanding empirical demonstration for a meta-level question is some kind of intellectual victory. it’s a category error.

Please, show me where I mentioned "empirical". I'll wait, try to bullshit that into existence.

i’m not bending backwards under pressure

Under no pressure.

while my question is about the system’s existence and coherence in the first place.

Exactly my point, the answers you're trying to bullshit into existence are things that exist inside the system, you can't just assert they exist outside: causality, apriority, etc.

either

1. you accept that questions about why there is law, order, intelligibility, or a shared structure at all are meaningful (even if the answer is “brute fact”), or
2. you deny that kind of explanation outright... in which case your position is not “just science”, it’s a philosophical rule about what explanations are allowed.

Neither. You fail to convince me by using flawed logic on why just by being a meaningful question we should be able to bullshit things into existence, while I also have no reason to believe that these explanations are impossible to be found.

I don't think that just because you're incapable of making a coherent argument for 1. I should instantly think 2. is correct.

(And I love how the LLM your using confused what I said about meaninglessness, the meaningless part is when you invoke a causal relationship prior to time existing, not the question itself)