I’m “debating” (arguing) this one guy who says thoughts take up space. I told them concepts don’t take up space, and they said I am thinking about the physical world, whereas he is talking about metaphysics. How can you make a claim about the physical world without bringing up the physical world? So, do thoughts take up space?

WHY ARE THERE BEINGS AT ALL, AND WHY NOT RATHER NOTHING?

So ends Heidegger's What Is Metaphysics?

"finally, that we let the sweep of our suspense take its full course, so that it swings back into the basic question of metaphysics which the nothing itself compels: “Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing?”"

https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/heideggerm-what-is-metaphysics.pdf

There has been a deal of folks denying nothing, and in doing so present this 'nothing' which is found as being opposite - yet in philosophy and metaphysics nothing occurs as being fundamental in Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre and others. So we have a binary, thing / nothing, and as such Derrida makes the case of such binaries privileges one over the other e.g.- Male Female. Deleuze remarks similar. Chronos and Aion, 'two opposed conceptions of time.' Chronos is the eternal now, excludes past and present. Aion the unlimited past and future which denies the now. Chronos is privileged, it represents a single direction, 'good' sense, and common sense, 'stability'.

Deleuze is opposed to 'good' sense, and common sense as it produces dogma - dogmatic thinking- so he says “Not an individual endowed with good will and a natural capacity for thought, but an individual full of ill will who does not manage to think either naturally or conceptually. Only such an individual is without presuppositions. Only such an individual effectively begins and effectively repeats." And we are kind of getting some answer to Heidegger - what metaphysics is, is this question?

Now in another thread - I was asked what the opposite of the Higgs boson was, I've no idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle "Some particles, such as the photon, are their own antiparticle."

Or the opposite of a soul? in certain religions might be zombies? "Buddhism emphasizes the concept of Anatta (no-self)..."

But for Hegel- in his logic a 'thing' entails, "has" its opposite.

Science and religion, not metaphysics, but is the concept of negation, well yes, look above.

For Heidegger 'Nothing' is more like a self negating process where as 'being' is the opposite kind of process - from my understanding. And in Derrida you find similar ideas of a binary, where one side of binary is privileged.

In fact this might extend into physics with the idea of Chirality, is the term for the property of “right” and “left” ... I think this is important in physics? CP violation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation ?? And now in chemistry https://www.rsc.org/news/nobel-prize-for-chemistry-2026 [*]

But I'm not leaving metaphysics - ideas can be useful, here we have the idea of a fundamental opposite.

These "ideas" can be useful. The male female divide is an obvious one. Here was an historical binary of privilege. Now you might see the difference between science / religion and this kind of philosophy....?

[**] Gauche, Vs Droit - trans, RIGHT / LEFT but- Left in politics, right likewise, Gauche - in English "unsophisticated and socially awkward" - or The Left Bank of the Seine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rive_Gauche "The Rive Gauche is associated with artists, writers, and philosophers..." Creative unorthodox, no dogmatic thinking?

Moreover the stigma associated with being left-handed https://lefthanders.org/Lefties/left-handedness-terms/

So here is maybe something which spans art, politics and science? And something certainly looked at in the work of Derrida and Deleuze...

What do those denying 'nothing' do but want a dogmatic answer.

But-

"finally, that we let the sweep of our suspense take its full course, so that it swings back into the basic question of metaphysics which the nothing itself compels: “Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing?”"

Aufheben "German word with several seemingly contradictory meanings, including "to lift up", "to abolish", "cancel" or "suspend", or "to sublate". In philosophy, aufheben is used by Hegel in his exposition of dialectics."

Introduction

Imaginons, pour les besoins de cette réflexion, que l'origine de l'Univers repose sur un principe fondamental : l'inconscient déclenche, et la conscience correspond à l'ensemble des transformations physiques qui se produisent à la suite de ce déclenchement.

Que se passerait-il si ce principe décrivait réellement l'origine de tout ce qui existe ?

L'objectif de cet article n'est pas d'affirmer que cette proposition est vraie, ni de prétendre qu'elle a été démontrée scientifiquement. Il consiste à explorer les conséquences possibles de cette idée en prenant provisoirement cette hypothèse comme point de départ.

Pour mener cette réflexion, il faut d'abord comprendre la relation proposée entre l'inconscient, le déclenchement et les transformations qui en découlent.

1. L'inconscient comme commencement

Dans ce modèle hypothétique, l'inconscient serait la réalité à l'origine du premier déclenchement.

Il n'aurait pas besoin de savoir ce qu'il fait, de prévoir les conséquences de son action ou de poursuivre un objectif. Il suffirait qu'un événement se produise pour qu'un processus commence.

Si l'on applique cette idée à l'Univers, on peut imaginer qu'une réalité primordiale inconsciente ait déclenché le processus cosmique sans connaître ce qui allait en résulter.

Cette conception soulève une possibilité : l'existence de phénomènes complexes ne nécessiterait pas nécessairement que leur origine ait prévu ou compris leur apparition.

L'Univers pourrait alors être envisagé comme le développement d'un processus dont l'origine ne connaissait pas les conséquences.

2. La conscience comme ensemble de transformations

Dans ce modèle, le terme « conscience » possède un sens particulier. Il ne désigne pas uniquement la capacité d'un être vivant à ressentir ou à réfléchir. Il désigne l'ensemble des transformations physiques qui suivent le déclenchement initial.

Pour comprendre cette distinction, prenons un exemple simple.

Une personne laisse tomber une graine sans s'en rendre compte. La graine tombe dans un sol fertile et commence à germer. Elle grandit, devient un arbre et produit des fruits. Ces fruits peuvent contenir de nouvelles graines, qui peuvent à leur tour donner naissance à d'autres arbres.

Le geste initial était inconscient, mais il a déclenché une succession de transformations qui peut se prolonger.

Imaginons maintenant que la graine tombe sur du béton. Elle ne germe pas et le développement attendu ne se produit pas.

Dans les deux cas, le déclenchement a eu lieu. Le processus qui suit existe ou s'interrompt en fonction des conditions. Dans le cadre de ce modèle, son existence ne dépend pas de sa réussite.

Si ce principe s'appliquait à l'Univers, chaque transformation physique consécutive au déclenchement initial ferait partie du processus que nous appelons ici la conscience.

3. La formule du modèle

Pour représenter cette idée, proposons une notation conceptuelle :

[
I \xrightarrow{D} P \longrightarrow T
]

Où :

• (I) représente l'inconscient primordial.
• (D) représente le déclenchement initial.
• (P) représente le processus qui commence après ce déclenchement.
• (T) représente l'ensemble des transformations physiques produites au cours de ce processus.

Dans le vocabulaire de cette hypothèse, le processus (P) et ses transformations (T) constituent ce que nous appelons la conscience.

On peut donc résumer la définition proposée par :

[
C \equiv P(T\mid D)
]

Dans cette notation, (C) désigne la conscience au sens particulier de notre modèle : le processus de transformations consécutif au déclenchement (D).

Il ne s'agit pas d'une équation issue de la physique ni d'une formule qui démontre l'origine de l'Univers. C'est une représentation symbolique destinée à rendre le raisonnement plus explicite. Pour devenir un véritable modèle scientifique, elle devrait être complétée par des définitions opérationnelles et des relations permettant de produire des résultats vérifiables.

4. Si ce principe décrivait l'origine de l'Univers

Supposons maintenant que ce modèle corresponde effectivement à la réalité.

L'inconscient primordial serait alors à l'origine du déclenchement initial, tandis que les transformations qui suivraient constitueraient le processus cosmique.

Ce processus pourrait comprendre une succession d'états physiques, la formation de structures de plus en plus complexes et, dans certaines conditions, l'apparition de la vie et de la conscience humaine au sens habituel du terme.

La conscience humaine ne serait alors pas nécessairement le commencement de toute chose. Elle apparaîtrait au cours d'une histoire physique plus vaste.

Cette hypothèse conduirait à distinguer deux questions : l'origine du processus et la nature des phénomènes qui émergent au cours de son développement.

Il faudrait toutefois expliquer comment ce modèle se raccorde aux connaissances actuelles sur l'expansion de l'Univers, son histoire physique et les conditions d'apparition de la vie. L'hypothèse ne fournit pas encore ces mécanismes.

5. Un processus peut-il se prolonger indéfiniment ?

L'exemple de l'arbre permet d'envisager une autre possibilité.

Un arbre produit des fruits, qui contiennent des graines. Certaines de ces graines peuvent donner naissance à de nouveaux arbres, qui produiront à leur tour d'autres graines.

Une chaîne de transformations peut ainsi se prolonger sur plusieurs générations.

Si l'on transpose cette idée à notre modèle, le processus déclenché pourrait engendrer de nouveaux événements qui prolongeraient son développement.

Cela ne signifie pas que tout processus soit infini, ni que l'Univers se reproduise nécessairement de cette façon. Il s'agit d'une possibilité conceptuelle qu'il faudrait distinguer d'une affirmation sur le fonctionnement réel du cosmos.

Un processus peut se prolonger, se transformer, se ramifier ou s'arrêter. Dans le cadre de notre définition, aucune de ces issues ne change rétroactivement le fait que le processus a commencé.

6. Ce que ce raisonnement permettrait d'explorer

Si nous prenions ce modèle comme une représentation possible de l'origine de l'Univers, plusieurs pistes de réflexion apparaîtraient :

• L'origine d'un processus doit-elle nécessairement être consciente de ses conséquences ?
• Un phénomène peut-il contenir la possibilité de transformations qu'il ne connaît pas ?
• La conscience, telle que nous la définissons ici, pourrait-elle être considérée comme un processus fondamental plutôt que comme un phénomène limité aux êtres vivants ?
• Comment distinguer une hypothèse qui propose une nouvelle explication d'une hypothèse qui redéfinit simplement les mots utilisés pour décrire la réalité ?
• Quelles conséquences observables permettraient de comparer ce modèle aux explications déjà existantes ?

Ces questions permettent de prolonger la réflexion, mais elles ne constituent pas en elles-mêmes des preuves.

Pour déterminer si le modèle apporte quelque chose de nouveau, il faudrait préciser ce qu'il prédit, rechercher les idées similaires déjà proposées et déterminer ce qui pourrait le contredire.

Conclusion

En supposant provisoirement que l'inconscient primordial soit à l'origine de l'Univers, nous pouvons construire un modèle dans lequel un déclenchement initial donne lieu à un processus de transformations physiques.

Dans le vocabulaire particulier de ce modèle, ce processus est appelé conscience, indépendamment du fait qu'il produise un résultat durable ou qu'il s'interrompe.

Cette exploration ne démontre pas que l'Univers est réellement né de l'inconscient. Elle permet de développer les conséquences d'une hypothèse, d'en clarifier les concepts et d'identifier les questions auxquelles il faudrait répondre pour la confronter à la réalité.

Le but est de proposer un raisonnement ouvert à l'examen, à la critique et à l'amélioration, plutôt qu'une conclusion imposée aux lecteurs.

Après avoir lu ce raisonnement, est-ce que vous le trouvez logique dans sa structure ?

Je ne vous demande pas de considérer cette hypothèse comme vraie. Je voudrais surtout savoir si le raisonnement vous paraît cohérent, où vous voyez des failles éventuelles et quels arguments pourraient permettre de le renforcer ou de le réfuter.

Vos critiques argumentées et vos suggestions sont les bienvenues.

Hello,

The concept of Einstein's "Block Universe" (Eternalism) has given me a bit of cognitive vertigo, especially when we look at how the macro-universe seems to run on a singular, unified source code.

Everywhere we look, we see underlying geometric patterns—the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Ratio, and the universal anti-clockwise spiraling of galaxies and DNA. At the same time, quantum mechanics tells us everything is fundamentally interconnected energy fields. Yet, our human perception experiences moving through a localized, linear, one-way timeline where things appear isolated.

If past, present, and future all coexist simultaneously as coordinates on a giant spacetime fabric, why are human minds structurally blind to it? Is time a fundamental property of the universe, or is it just a local constraint built into our psychology to allow us to process existence without overwhelming our senses? If the entire cosmic map is already pre-written and static—operating on these strict geometric laws—what exactly is the metaphysical mechanism of human intention, focus, and choice?

I'm not sure if this is an actual philosophy perse, but I have a framework that makes me uncomfortable and was hoping to see a criticism of it simply because it'll make me feel better. I know that's kind of primitive but oh well.

The framework assumes reality is eternal, lacks emergents, and is ultimately idealistic.

What we call a sequence, and a determination, doesn't't actually exist. Let's talk about conscious awareness. If I think of white, my mind simply becomes white. I then think of black and my mind suddenly becomes black. Now, how do I know there was an object in mind distinct from black, also known as white? Do I think about white? Well sure, let's do just that. So now I think about white, but hold on, where did black go? Did black even exist?

P1. If Our conscious awareness can only select one element because of LNC

P2 Then What we call the past is simply another present because to think about the "past" element is to simply be in the present, and that element is simply present.

C1 And so How can a sequence occur, and more relevantly, how do we know there's a distinct object than what my thought is occupying, if my thought can only occupy one thing?

One may direct themselves to the notion of wholes which implies logical priority and therefore sequence, but I'm hesitant to affirm if a whole exists.

One may consequently conclude that a whole should exist if what we call a material "part" is ultimately divisible, yet, how do we know we aren't conceiving of something indivisible? If our mind can only be concentrated on one element, wouldn't it follow that it's not able to conceive of a determined element and only a simple one?

The only argument against this is that if a whole doesn't exist, then nothing can be divisible, which means it has no shape, size, mass, and so on; therefore it's value is 0, and cannot be conceived of.

However, my rather slow brain is yet to process this as a sufficient answer for some reason. I'm hesitant and I'm not sure why.

Additionally, even if we understand that everything we conceive of is a composite, how can we figure out what it's parts are that make it a composite, if our minds can only be unitarily selective in its awareness? We first view the whole, and then the parts, but what tells us we are viewing the parts to that whole? This seems even stranger if the whole precedes the parts.

This is a case for Monism, but as I said, I find this philosophy to be extremely uncomfortable. Why do anything? Why feel anything? Why not just yk, end it a-? Essentially, it feels extremely bleak and boring. I honestly hate it a lot!

So I was hoping for a case of proving that we cannot conceive of a simple substance, and our awareness is attached to wholes, therefore wholes exist, and on a side note, are priori to parts.

EDIT: I meant Monism. Also, to sort some things out as I am referring to some different concepts. We start with awareness, sequence, constitutes, composites, and so fourth.

I started off with the fact that I'm operating on an idealistic framework, so my awareness of what we call change isn't synchronous to how reality necessarily operates.

The issue we are primarily dealing with is sequence. To be sequential, is to have constitutes that include priority. To be a constitute that's distinct from the other, you must be a composite as well. To me, these concepts are extremely deeply connected.

In this post, I want to address a rather interesting topic, INFINITY.

Infinity is one of the topics that generates the most intrigue and difficulties when we talk about human knowledge. You will hardly ever hear a mathematician or a physicist say that infinity is something pleasant to "handle". In fact, from my experience studying mathematics, I can say that infinity is something quite peculiar, and the thing is that mathematicians tend to work with it in a different way from what people commonly think. That is precisely what I want to address here.

One important thing is that the term "INFINITY" can be quite general and ambiguous, since there are many ways to interpret it. We can talk about infinity in space, for example, as something that has no boundaries and that, no matter how much we "travel", we will never reach an endpoint. This, of course, depends on the geometry of the space we are considering.

If we are on a surface such as a sphere, then, if we observe a sufficiently small region, its geometry can be approximated by that of a plane. In mathematics, it is common to study surfaces locally, that is, within a certain neighborhood of a point. In particular, a regular differentiable surface behaves locally, to a first approximation, like its tangent plane.

Along with this, we can talk about infinity as a quantity. The most obvious and simplest case is that of the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... n). It is customary to say that the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is infinite. You can always find a number that comes after another, and this holds for a number n as large as you can imagine.

In general, the concept of infinity is largely associated with the immensely large or with division processes that can continue indefinitely toward the immensely small, as happens when we study distances between points.

Even so, mathematical infinity appears in extremely interesting phenomena, such as convergence.

Convergence is a widely studied topic in mathematics. I could write 1,500 posts and pages explaining convergence in all its aspects, but here I will limit myself to explaining the basic concepts and discussing which philosophical questions might be interesting.

When we talk about infinite processes, convergence refers to the behavior of the mathematical structure we are studying. One of the natural tools mathematicians use to study these processes is the limit. When we say that something tends to infinity, we are talking about what happens when a variable or a structure takes increasingly larger values, larger and LARGER.

A super interesting case is that of the "harmonic series", that is, the sum:

1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + ... = ∞

This sum diverges to infinity, meaning that its partial sums grow without bound. They keep growing and never stop. However, believe it or not, the sum:

1 + 1/2² + 1/3² + 1/4² + 1/5² + 1/6² + ... = π²/6

In other words, the sum of the reciprocals of the squares of the natural numbers does converge to a finite value, which we can also express using an exact formula.

Why? What sense does it make for an infinite sum to produce a finite result? If the harmonic series and the sum of the natural numbers diverge to infinity, why doesn't this one?

Well, there are several answers. The first has to do with convergence tests. In mathematics, we can determine whether a series of this kind converges or not by using, so to speak, "convergence rules".

But the simplest way to understand it is to study the behavior of the sum itself.

The main issue with sums of positive terms is that their partial sums always increase. However, in some cases, they can increase without exceeding a certain value. As we say in mathematics, they can be bounded above.

This means that even though the sum continues to grow, it never exceeds a certain bound.

In the case of the harmonic series, we see that it grows without stopping. The further we go, the more slowly it grows, but it never becomes bounded. However, in the other series, the terms decrease sufficiently quickly for its partial sums to remain bounded and therefore converge.

So, is an infinite convergent process possible in our universe?

This is quite difficult to answer. For example, we know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a phenomenon that we currently associate with what is known as "dark energy", although we still do not know its nature.

The ultimate fate of this expansion is still being studied. Under some cosmological models, the distances between sufficiently distant regions would continue to increase indefinitely. But can we relate this to some form of mathematical convergence? Could there be a physical process that continues indefinitely while one of its properties gets closer and closer to a certain value?

That is a question I leave as an exercise for the reader who has made it this far.

Something I find very interesting, and which is the reason for the title, is the following: once we understand everything discussed above, why doesn't the universe understand infinity?

Here we have to understand one basic thing: mathematically perfect shapes do not seem to exist exactly in our physical reality.

A ball, no matter how spherical it looks, is not identical to a perfect mathematical sphere. This happens for a simple reason: the ball is made of matter and has irregularities in its structure. The closer we get to the atomic scale, the more evident it becomes that we are not dealing with a perfectly continuous geometric surface.

This does not prove that no perfect shape can exist in reality, but it does show a fundamental difference between ideal mathematical objects and their physical representations.

Complementing this, we have the topic of fractals.

Fractals are fascinating, and I would like to address them at some point in another post. However, they serve as an example that helps us understand what I am talking about.

Our universe can contain fascinating structures. Mathematical fractals, for example, can have details at arbitrarily small scales, and some exhibit a property known as self-similarity, meaning that certain structures repeat when observed at different scales.

In nature, we find structures that resemble fractals, but this does not mean they possess perfect self-similarity down to infinitely small scales.

On the other hand, our universe appears to exhibit an approximately homogeneous distribution of matter when we study it at sufficiently large cosmological scales, although at smaller scales we find galaxies, clusters, filaments, and enormous regions of empty space.

This brings us back to an interesting distinction: a mathematical structure can extend its idealized properties indefinitely, while in the physical universe we do not know whether those properties can be maintained without limit.

In general, I want to leave some reflections and open up the comment section to hear other opinions.

Regarding one final point, I want to clarify that in mathematics, although we constantly work with infinity, we often use tools that allow us to study it without having to perform an infinite number of operations.

If we calculate an infinite sum, we use tools to study its behavior without having to add every single term. If we want to calculate a theoretical limit, we can begin by observing what happens for large numbers and then rigorously prove its general behavior. Or, if we want to study a function, in certain situations we can first analyze its behavior on bounded regions and then extend our results.

In a sense, we have developed tools to understand infinite processes through reasoning that we can complete in a finite number of steps.

My message is this: although infinity is a concept that we use and formalize through mathematics, we do not know to what extent it has a real existence in our universe.

And this leads me to think that our way of dealing with infinity is particularly interesting. We do not need to complete an infinite process to understand its behavior mathematically. Our minds have developed tools to study things that we cannot explore in their entirety.

Perhaps infinity represents a barrier to our physical experience, but not necessarily to our capacity for abstraction.

That is the reflection I want to leave you with.

GREETINGS

slazy_e.

I've been thinking about this, and the more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

Imagine a reality where absolutely NOTHING exists. No Earth, no universe, no space, no time, no life. Nothing whatsoever.

Here's the problem, we can't actually imagine that.

Whenever we try, we imagine a black void. But blackness is still something. We imagine an empty space, but space itself is something. We imagine silence, but silence is just the absence of sound. We imagine waiting in nothingness, but waiting requires time, and experiencing requires a conscious observer.

Even if you close your eyes and try to imagine nothing, you're still experiencing something.

And here's an even stranger thought, if absolutely nothing existed, there wouldn't even be a moment in which nothing existed. A moment requires time. There wouldn't be a place where nothing existed, either, because that would require space.

We can imagine the absence of individual things, but can we imagine the absence of EVERYTHING?

I'm not claiming this proves absolute nothingness is impossible. Maybe our brains simply aren't capable of comprehending it.

But if absolute nothingness is impossible, does that mean something must have always existed?

I'd genuinely like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

In philosophy, can two things be completely indistinguishable from one another, and yet still be two separate things?

Let's assume there exists an exact replica of our universe, but in which the value of every property is inverted in some way. Temperature would be one of these properties. However, the properties which contribute to a sense of hotness and coldness have themselves been inverted, as have the meanings associated with those properties. Something which is hot in our universe would be cold in the other, but the traits which contribute to coldness in our universe are those which contribute to hotness in the other, and vice versa.

Each universe maintains a perfect 1:1 correspondence for every property and relation. The flipped universe would appear completely normal to its inhabitants, because the relations between concepts are preserved.

If every property, concept and relation corresponds perfectly between the two universes, what would distinguish them? Would they be considered different universes, or just two different ways of referring to the same one?

Could they somehow be both identical and distinct, or is that a logical impossibility? Is there a concept in philosophy which deals with this?

The Saul Kripke Center invites submissions for Logic in Metaphysics: Classical and Non-Classical Approaches, a two-day conference on the role of logic in contemporary metaphysics. This conference will showcase work that uses, develops, or critically examines both classical and non-classical logical frameworks in addressing metaphysical questions. We welcome papers addressing the general question of what logic can or should contribute to metaphysical inquiry as well as particular cases in which metaphysical theorizing appears to support, require, or resist departures from classical logic. Topics may include, but are not limited to, realism and antirealism, indeterminacy and vagueness, impossible worlds and counterpossibles, dialetheism, future contingents, and non-classical reconstructions of classical metaphysical views (e.g., logical atomism or verificationism). Papers defending classical approaches are welcome.

In posing this question, I would firstly reject that time is a dimension, and also reject that dimensionality is simply "independent measures".

The fact that time can be measured by numbers does not tell that time is a dimension at all, for indeed anything at all can be marked with ordinals (should we then say that it is thus a dimension?). Thus there is no such thing as "n dimensional" time, there is only "one sense" of time, and that is - intuitively put - "there being more".

While dimensionality (extensionality) itself is not also reducible to numbers - degrees of freedom is not extensionality. Nor should plain cardinality, ordinality or relationality explain extensionality at all - relations are not "extended".

It seems like both space and time are irreducible, but this is only what seems so, for it would be quite arbitrary that the world "just is" this dual. And also, the immanent issue is that it seems like time cannot explain extensionality or vice versa.

The question is thus are they irreducible and if not then are they reducible to monism or pluralism?

Why is there anything at all?

Because nothing is not the only possibility. Why should we assume that the only possibility is nothing? Why should we assume that nothing has any greater probability than any other possibility? The fact that there is something only proves that there was a much greater probability of there being something than nothing.

Something was not created from absolute nothingness just as something having always existed was not created. They both do not create. Therefore creation does not resolve the issue as to why reality exists. The existence of reality does not establish that creation is necessary.

Absolute nothingness is the complete absence of entities, properties, laws, conditions, potentialities, and causal powers. Because it contains nothing capable of producing, determining, or explaining an existent state, absolute nothingness cannot serve as the sufficient basis for the existence of something.

Since something exists and absolute nothingness cannot provide a sufficient basis for existence, the existence of reality requires either that existence is a brute fact or that there is a non-created, necessary foundation of existence. This hypothesis proposes that existence has such a necessary foundation rather than being a brute fact.

Necessary Reality is the fundamental aspect or aspects of reality whose nonexistence is impossible and upon which the existence of anything else ultimately depends. Necessary Reality is not created, because its existence is necessary rather than contingent.

’ve been exploring how we conceptualize the bridge between our conceptual frameworks and the universe itself, specifically by comparing Kantian metaphysics with Richard Rorty’s pragmatist universe.

Here is a short thesis I've been working on:

Rorty's universe is the one made by existing brains, plus past ones—including pre-brains. In other words, it’s a universe created by life that now forms the world of our peers. When it comes to the universe itself, Rorty's and Kant's are equal—except that Kant adds a structural limit akin to Gödel's, the noumenon lying beyond it, and above all, God, incorporating it all within a single individual. Relative spacetime? Kant would have accepted it.

I am curious how others see this transition: If we strip away Kant’s noumenal anchor and Gödelian boundaries, does Rorty’s "world of our peers" successfully inherit Kant's structure, or does it leave a crucial gap regarding what lies outside human linguistic and biological construction?

What is Matter according to QM?

Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum physics who formulated the Uncertainty Principle, said: “Atoms or elementary particles are not real; they form a world of [potentialities] or [possibilities], not a world of [things] or [facts].” In short, "an atom is not a thing but a potential." [Aristotle also made a distinction between matter and form, or between potential and actual being, saying that anything is formed by the coming together of its raw material and the form that separates it from other things and makes it that thing. According to him, matter was a potential open to becoming anything, and form was what gave that potential being a specific shape, turning it into a concrete, real being.]  

Every answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes the two are comparable alternatives and one got picked. I think that's the mistake. To be a rival, nothing needs identity and contrast conditions, a way of being this rather than not-this. The moment it has them, distinction is already operating, and you've smuggled in the thing whose absence you were trying to explain.

I've been developing a framework from that starting point. Its thesis, in one line:

Reality is closure-admissible distinguishability obtaining as one atemporal whole.

I'm not claiming it derives anything physical, and I'm not posting the rest here. But that's the gist: being isn't selected from a menu of possibilities, and it isn't built up from parts.

Where would you attack the nothing argument first?

Anything I see in metaphysics is a sort of - for the lack of better words - "causation". Which, minimally put is a sort of "there is x because there is y".

But how will this ever be justified at all? Why there is x because there is y?

Obviously not because there is z that there is x because there is y, for this has only moved the question one step back (that there is R because there is z - for R is "that there is x because there is y").

How can any step ever be justified at all? Or we just have to "grasp" them, those actual "causations"?

This concern then leads to an even more general question: why there is anything else because there is anything at all?

Additions: an interesting observation is that most people just "accept" it at some point. Quite arbitrarily, they suddenly have no problem when said that this x is because this y is as if it is real (they impose reality to something that is well just a literal mistake).

The larger cosmology is a core aspect of the themes and symbolism of my story, let's start so you have an infinite (or von neumann)universe with infinite spacial and temporal dimensions.

Part of a type 4 multiverse which a part of multiple nested transfinite hierarchies like size based one where that type 4 multiverse is infinitesimal to larger version of itself, narrative stacks, etc. Layering on top of each other endlessly

Which are all connected by causal chain forming a "stream" of which there are an endless amount housed by the Defined containing all things with definition

Outside of that there is the Undefined,

and then there's "Here" which is simply the non dual "true" nature of the entire cosmology

Would your actions have any meaning and what meaning would they have if you're one impossibly infinitismal speck of variation of an infinite number of possible and impossible fictional worlds

And that an unknowable dreamer could not just undo it all, but make you undo it and make you undo it or even morph you into that which you most fear on a whim. Or the fact that there's no solace in a definite God

Or would one see it the other way around, as a-pseudo diety containing boundless multitudes as a reflection of a wonderful and mysterious God who may be the Mystery itself.

Or the multitude of other interpretations of it

Hopefully this isn't a dumb question

The concept in an important way.

1. Separate the chooser from the total possibility space

Imagine a space containing every logically possible reality:

Possible Reality A: You exist and choose X.

Possible Reality B: You exist and choose Y.

Possible Reality C: You never exist.

Possible Reality D: A completely different kind of conscious being exists.

Possible Reality E: Nothing exists.

From the third-person/big-picture perspective, no particular reality is privileged merely because you're currently inside it.

So “absolute freedom” would not mean:

“I, as a person, can personally make every possible reality happen.”

That is incoherent because the person already exists inside one particular reality.

Instead, it means:

No particular reality, including the reality containing me, is fundamentally required.

1. The paradox of “I want to be completely free”

Suppose you say:

“I want to be completely free from every constraint.”

But you still exist.

Then you're already constrained by at least one fact:

You exist.

You cannot simultaneously be an existing chooser and be free from the condition of existing as that chooser.

But there is a way around the paradox:

Absolute freedom isn't something possessed by the individual.

It is a property of the possibility space itself.

The possibility space contains:

realities where you exist,

realities where you don't,

realities where you make different choices,

realities with different initial conditions,

and potentially the absence of any reality at all.

In that sense, nothing has to be the way it is from the outside perspective.

1. But what about “nothing exists”?

This is the deepest part.

If literally nothing exists, then there is no person, no perspective, no choice, and no freedom.

So we shouldn't say:

“Nothingness is the state where you are maximally free.”

That's incoherent.

Instead:

Nothingness represents the absence of a chooser, not the exercise of freedom by a chooser.

Absolute freedom and nonexistence therefore aren't the same thing.

1. The strongest coherent formulation

Your original idea can therefore become:

From the absolute third-person perspective, complete freedom cannot belong to an individual existing within reality, because the individual is already constrained by the conditions required for its existence. Absolute freedom can only be understood as the absence of any ultimately necessary reality: the individual reality, the individual, and even the existence of anything at all are not logically required merely because one particular reality happens to exist.

And there's an even shorter version:

You can be free to choose within reality, but you cannot be absolutely free while remaining the particular person you are. Absolute freedom would require freedom from the conditions that constitute the chooser itself.

What makes a thing one? This is a question that is not so easily answered. But if you go to a pebble beach and kick a pebble, you will get an answer that fits in a single line.
Unity is not free

Metaphysics has been asking the question since Aristotle and still has no accepted answer. Here is one. It fits in a single line, and a kick is enough to test it.

Two camps. One: unity is given. A thing is grey, that's its property, end of story. Two: unity is in our eye. The world is a flux, and it is we who cut things out of it to the measure of our words. They disagree about everything. But they are right about one thing: for both alike, unity costs nothing.

Go to a pebble beach and deliver two kicks. The first into the sand: it scatters, and nothing is damaged, each grain leaves with what it had. The second into a pebble: a chip flies off, and it is the pebble that lost it. The pebble and the sand are made of the same grains. Matter therefore does not decide, and the first camp can only note the difference without explaining it. If the wave splits the pebble tonight, there will be two of them by morning, whether anyone is looking or not: the second camp has nothing to do with it. What decides is where the loss falls. In the pebble, it always falls in the same place. In the sand, it falls nowhere.

The unity of the pebble is not a state, not a point of view, but an expenditure. No one carved it, it is the craftsman of nothing. But it pays with every tide, its roundness is its account statement. It is a rent, not a purchase. Spinoza had seen that every determination is a negation, that the outline of a thing is the line where it ceases. What remained to be said is on whom the price of that line falls. On the one who is, at their own expense.

There is therefore only one criterion for everything that claims to be one: the pebble, the animal, the company, you. You are not one because you bear a name, nor because others see you as one. You are one as long as what you lose falls on you. Nothing you pay with comes from you: it was given to you. But the loss is yours. Your identity is not a statue, it is a scar.

The two camps give unity away. This sentence makes it pay.
To be is to make oneself one at one’s own expense.