Ebooks   ➡  Nonfiction  ➡  Philosophy  ➡  Metaphysics

What Exists, Via Necessity


What Exists, Via Necessity


By Austin P. Torney


Copyright 2015 Austin P. Torney


Shakespir Edition


(Please review and dissect.

[email protected])


0. What the heck am I doing here, thrust into life, uninformed of its essence, having to mostly deal with existence, day in and day out?


So it is that you have noted the necessity of this situation of our human condition, for that’s how it is, plus it’s also our nature to wonder about the essence of existence from time to time, as probably our most often asked question.


What a dilemma!


In a Theory of Everything forum long ago, in the 9th century, Abunasr Farabi wrote:


Vague and unrefined did the secrets of existence remain.

Unpierced did that highly revered pearl remain.

Each person said something according to his reason.

Yet untold did the point which was of essence remain.


And Abulhasan Kharquani replied in the forum in the 11th century (the internet was slow in those days):


The primordial secrets neither you know nor I.

The words of the puzzle neither you can read nor I.

Your discourse and mine are behind the curtain.

When the curtain falls, neither you remain nor I.


Omar Khayyam wondered and wrote of the human condition,


The sphere upon which mortals come and go,

Has no end nor beginning that we know;

And none there is to tell us in plain truth:

Whence do we come and whither do we go.

— Ahmad Saidi’s version


and concluded, eventually, after coming full circle from his deconstructions of religious myth-takes,


Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,

Before we too into the Dust descend;

Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie

[_ Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and -- sans End! _]

— FitzGerald’s version


which philosophy I agree with, although,


The search for the ultimate truth sublime

Of all that is leads us wise through its clime,

Within and without, is a swelling quest;

For then we know ourselves for the first time.

(— Austin, hereafter non attributed)


but, still, to some lessor event, compared to long ago,


No one has plumbed the Secret Depths of Truth—

The jewel eludes e’en the wisest sleuth;

Thus we hear wishes turned to beliefs’ lore,

Yet none can say “It’s this, and here’s the proof”.

— Austin’s re-transmogrification of Omar



p<>{color:#000;}. We have experiences; thus there is something.


I, of the endless forms most beautiful,

Am stunned that my glass to the brim is full,

Life’s wine coursing through me, as ‘magical’,

On this lovely, rolling sphere so bountiful.


1a. If a lack of anything was ever, it would ever ‘be’ so.


1b. Nonexistence cannot be; it has no properties.


1ba. Existence has no opposite, as necessity.


1bb. If one still says that nonexistence can be productive then that capability is something, and not nonexistence.


Nonexistence can’t be, nor even be meant;

So it is that existence must be here;

There’s no other option, by necessity,

And thus herein these pages we learn its ways.


1c. There must be an objective, real basis, for there can be no true paradoxes, such as how could something be, for it already is.


1d. Allah did it.


We can’t just layer on, non sequitur, that it is a Person. Best to stick only to the truth that we have so far that something exists. We can only refer to it as What IS or the Basis.



2. Experiences demonstrate a pattern of happenings/events.


2a. We have senses; thus it is proved that there is something physical outside of us for our senses to take in.


2aa. Examples: Our sense of smell begins wth molecule shapes; our sense of sound begins with air vibrations.



3. The physical Basis of Existence is not contingent on anything else, or it wouldn’t be the Basis; thus, the Basis does not depend on anything else, making it ‘ever’.


3a. The Basis is simple and non composite, for it cannot depend on its parts for being. Whatever depends on something else cannot be Fundamental/First.


3aa. It is not makable, for it has no parts for it to be made of/from.


3aab. It is ever; it never became; it just is, unchangeable. There can be no higher dimension in which it can be built or changed in time, as that leads to a regress. Whatever has a beginning is not the Basis.


3ab. It is not breakable, for its has no parts to be broken into.


3aba. It is ever; it never goes away; it just is, unchangeable.


3b. The Basis is made of itself as existence itself, for lack of anything specific to call it. We might call it energy.


3ba. There isn’t anything more fundamental to compare it to.


3c. It is not embedded in some larger extent (space) nor in some longer duration (time), for there isn’t anything outside of or before the Basis (or it wouldn’t be the Basis, anyway).


3d. The Basis has no choice but to be; no option whatsoever. It cannot not be. There is no ‘luck’ to it; it is ever in the right place at the right time, place and time being of emergent features to us.


3da. There is no point at which any set direction or design could have been imparted to it; so, its form and what it does must be of necessity.


3e. The Basis, being non composite, cannot be a system or a mind. Thus, progression/transformation is expected to be slow, and its accomplishments turn out to be numbingly slow to us.


3ea. It appears that all that happens could not have been foreseen.


3eaa. Brute force is all that’s left.


3eaaa. Arrangements have come to be a workable universe, to us.


3f. High complexity arrives much later / far upward of the fundamental Basis. Proof: It took billions of years for life and us to form. This long yardstick sticks in the throat, and yet it is so.


3fa. Evidently, there are no short cuts of ‘magic’; natural processes have to churn, and even with the right conditions, plus evolution, they still have to churn, requiring optimal conditions, such as near extinctions at the right time. If they fail, to us, well, there are always other planets that might bear life.


3fb. If one Big Bang doesn’t amount to anything workable, then, since there can be one Bang there can be another.


3g. It is an error to not accept that what we have could just be so, requiring that some way Larger Existence needs be responsible for our lessor existence, and that the larger Existence can just be, throwing away this golden template after only one usage, suddenly no longer requiring a LARGER for the Larger to come from. This error is called “begging the question” by posing an even larger question pretending to be an answer.


3ga. There isn’t much worse than the religious who dishonestly state things as if they are truth and fact, given that ‘faith’ is an honest word, but worse there is, indeed, when such as what they state from page one of the Bible is outright wrong, for man was not made as is, immutable, a few thousand years ago, but evolved, from one tree of life, with the species having not been made separately, plus Earth is not the center of All, as fixed, nor is the sky a dome, and more.


3gb. I don’t state that there is no ‘God’ for sure, as that would be dishonest, but rather say that that it’s not established and so I don’t have anything to work with. ‘Faith’ doesn’t provide anything, as its definition honestly indicates. I have provided reasons why a Supernatural isn’t likely, and another reason is upcoming.


3h. What we have as life in the world is neither the best nor the worst that could be, but a workable average of features that cannot all be maximized. Read a big city newspaper if you dare.


3ha. Example: We survived not in spite of our violence but because of it. Even our cooperation was born out of the need to better our hunts or wars. If we could just erase our aggressive tendencies then perhaps some of our zest for life would disappear, too, as a side effect. Many things are interwoven, and at least there is somewhat of a balance, even if it is a shaky one.


3i. We have not been around that long, and may not last, but what we see is what we got and have, and that’s it. If only there was some ‘magic’ to be applied at large by some Intangible to make it better.


3ia. There can’t be extra-, super-, intangible, etc., for they would still have to speak the language of the tangible and exchange energy with it.


3j. The eternalness of the Basis is not in time, such as that it has no earliest event/memory in an endless regression, but is timeless, full, all-at-once, and unchanging at large. Evidently, and surely, there can be perturbations within in.


3k. Nor is it infinite in the sense that it has a spacial ever going on that can be capped as complete, but is spaceless, having but its relations via its arrangements providing a self-made scale.



4. The Basis encompasses a lot, not a little. Proof: the Universe is incredibly large, containing seemingly near endless amounts of stuff.


4a. This ‘extravagance’ of material needs be, of necessity, as all aspects of the Basis have to be, to some extent, at least.


4aa. There is no difficulty for humongous amounts of stuff to be.



5. What is in the Universe spans a great range from the larger to the smaller, relative to us who are near the mid-point, more or less.


5a. Some aggregates in the Universe are quite large, such as stars, their size apparently limited to some certain possible size just before they would have to collapse into a black hole.


5b. The smallest that we can hope to measure—the Planck length, is indeed very minuscule to us.


5c. It’s as if the near endless largest and the near infinitesimal smallest provide for a finite unity at their center, but this is only a speculation to be worked on.


6. All that is and all that goes on is of the Basis, and this is probably why we’re curious as to its nature. Some may be disappointed in not finding a great complexity sitting there.


6a. Still, in a way, the simple Basis can be thought of as great, although it is small and has to be existent, and so it didn’t win a contest or earn its place. It’s in the only place at the only time, and even this as a base existent without space or time. Nevertheless, it is great in its own forced way because everything of its higher arrangements is of/from it.



7. Events keep on going on, at least so far, with no stops or repeating loops that we can detect.


7a. The only constant of the Basis is that it makes for change in appearances. It’s stillness is apparently not possible.


7aa. Time shows as change in appearances in the order of succession.


7ab. Space shows as order of coexistent appearances in relation to one another.



8. All that happens of the Basis is as real as the Basis, for there is only the Basis.


8a. We can assign degrees to denote what is more and more higher as more and more complex, sometimes calling these properties emergent, but at the end of the day what is of the Real is real, too, for it happens, and this is even if the happenings are a re-presentatation, such as via the brain, which is actually the only ‘via’, anyway.



9. There is consistency in nature’s development, and in ours, too, in going from the simpler to the more complex.


9a. We see that a few simple, lowest, atomic elements form right away, and protons make for stars, which produce the rest of the lower atomic elements, and, when stars explode, produce the higher elements, which coalesce into molecules and planets, on some of which primitive cells develop, and can come life, which can then evolve, etc.


We’re constructed from the stuff of stars’ grand,

Through life’s history recorded in strands

Of DNA, both recent and older,

The parts conducting, to play as a band.


Bio-electric-chemicals grow,

Through metabolism, through our road show,

Experiences and inclinations

Forming the life expression that we know.


All’s thanks to Death’s prolonged sifting of ‘dies’,

Of the rest from the best, silly from wise,

The pointless from the pointed—selection.

Oh, through ink-black rivers we had to rise!


Life’s birthright, long signed by time, dust, and death,

Doth also serve, for the Earth’s living quests,

As an epitaph: RIP; time wears,

The tips of the strands rip, tear; dust is left.


9b. In us, our neural networks vote for what thoughts and actions become, from what we have become up to that moment.



10. There can be no such events as ‘random’, that is, outputs of changes in appearances becoming not of anything, that is, without regard to what is there, as input, that is, coming, rather, from Nothing.


10a. The determinism of what must be related to what or what must affect what is the price paid for consistency, and so “whatever will be will be” in nature and us. As much as it has a bad taste, that’s the only way it can be, given that there can no ‘random’, plus that if there were a ‘random’ it wouldn’t help, and would actually hurt. The will cannot be free of itself.


10aa. True that quantum measurements are indeterminate, such that we must resort to probability; however, what really happens or is the state that we can’t get at or measure is still of determinism.


10b. What good is the necessarily determined life which can be no other way?


We still get to experience it, plus our consistency gives us a fine start on our continuance/survival; however, we can’t really yet layer on motive to What IS.


10c. Why do humans express themselves in a spectrum from the very good to very bad, and in-between, plus with so much apparent nonsense?


They have to reflect the wide ranging ingredients of the human recipe. Call it ‘diversity’.


10d. What about that they could have and should have done better in some way?


They didn’t or won’t or can’t, and that is the proof that there are no ‘ifs’; the actuality at the time trumps all ‘ifs’, just as it did for us when we indulged in some excesses earlier in life.


What if Hitler had won WWII? He didn’t, and could not have, given the actual circumstances.


10e. We impose local boundaries or try to experiment in isolation in order to get some ideas of local cause and effect, which is fine for what it does, but all that goes on is rather a continuation/transformation of What IS as the Basis. It’s not like anything else can stick its nose into things, but if you really want that then it’s just another input.



11. An ongoing identity to that which appears to continue in its semblance is provided by the mind; in actuality, things, and even us, are not identical moment to moment, with little deaths of parts and little birth additions of parts happening all the time, as atoms coming and going.


11a. The big death differs only in degree; our atoms may go on to constitute new life of whatever level or end up only as dust. That’s the zen of now and then and when.



12. All we ever ‘see’ is the inside of the mind, which is, of course, a process of the brain called ‘consciousness’.


12a. How could there be a brain process producing consciousness from correlated neural substrates of material?

Well, there is, and we can stop consciousness via anesthesia to the brain cells. It’s not a ‘hard’ problem, for surely the brain understands its own invented symbolic language, the only representation it (as being us) ever ‘sees’. Consciousness is the brain’s perception of itself.


Consciousness mediates thoughts versus outcomes,

And is distributed all over the body,

From the nerve spindles to the spine to the brain—

A way to actionize before moving.


Conscious Awareness, which can but witness,

Is a safe haven from which to observe

The drama of our lives playing in our minds,

Granting us a sobering distance from it.



13. Ha, thirteen is unlucky. Actually, I’m reserving this spot for future developments.



14. What’s a best guess for the actual implementation scheme behind the phenomenal messages that we get, meaning what is the messenger as the noumena?


14a. You are noting that our map is not guaranteed to be the actual territory, although the brain’s fine painting upon that part of reality coming into the senses must have some amount of best-can-do faithful rendering, although it adds things on for usefulness. Sensing waves may be useful for bats but for us turning a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum wave frequencies into the visible colors seems to serve better that us seeing the jumble and noise of all sorts of waves to then take more time to sort out as to what’s what.


14b. Our instruments detects wider spectrum than we can, but, still, we have to made guesses about the nature of reality’s workings that are not fully informed, as we cannot fully get to the noumenal.


14c. Some might say that the message, say, of music, contains its essence, and that who cares if its implementation is of a live band, a radio, or an mp3 player.


Well, it’s true that an implementation that doesn’t really make a difference is really no difference, but if we can guess at the nature of the Basis some more, given the constraints of necessity that we’ve already identified, then, well, that’s at least something to do, and it might get somewhere all the way someday.


14d. What if we’ve run out of the primal necessities and get to the point that we only exist because this universe, out of many, is suitable for us to have formed?


Could be, and then that’s that, all we are all the more afar from utilizing more necessity, stranded from knowing all, not that we can know all even if this is the only Universe; however, if there has to be a multiverse then there is the necessity that any and all variations must come to pass, so that would be knowledge; however, the multiverse is hard to get at, and all we have going for it is to look at the fossil Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) for indications of baby bubble universes bumping.


14e. OK, we can always come up with something, maybe someday, but what good is the understanding that we can’t completely know everything?


Well, even that tells us something—that we can hardly be blamed for not knowing.


Cripes, how do you keep obtaining truths even when all seems to be lost?


That’s the power of philosophy.



15. Fine. What’s a best guess for how the Basis works?


15a. We have found discreteness in nature, which is called the ‘quantum’, more or less, which disproves any notion of real continuity or continuous motion, but the quantum march on and can serve as an approximation of continuity. Zeno showed all this with his paradoxes based on continuity. The universe is digital, not analog.


15b. So, Relativity’s continuum emerges at large numbers, but its assumption of continuity is probably what causes some of it solution to go to infinity, which shows the incompleteness of it. This is not terrible, but helpful or us to join it with quantum mechanics, in the form of quantum gravity, but this hasn’t been done yet, so we’ll continue to guess.


15c. Couldn’t there be both of the whole and of the particulars, such as our left and right brain hemispheres represent?


Sure, as multiplicity in unity, such as a grouping order within a symmetry, for the Basis is a whole and complete and yet internally there is change/transformation.


15d. The particulars are relational to one another, and that’s all there is. Everything else such as space or spacetime, charge, time, motion, and whatnot would be a consequence of the relations, some more directly and some more emergently at much higher levels of complexity.


15e. What else besides the guess of particulars doing something as a default necessity?


There is the guess of the only other default that something like ‘possibility’ or ‘capability’ is fundamental, granting anything and everything, given the necessity of the fundamental having no set direction (thus it being everything), which we might even combine with the particulars arranging into anything, too.


Plus, we’d have to dispense with something substantially actual as being ever, replacing it something more nebulous like potential or possibility. We’ll have to see as we go along through some musty corridors and dark alleys.


I’ll follow every single avenue,

Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,

Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,

Until cornered where the truth is hiding.


15f. Continuing, I rely on Carlos Rovelli and others who, in the quest for quantum gravity, have revisited some things, putting them in italics…


In order to have a concrete example of a system of classical point particles, the substantivalist will argue that these particles occupy points in absolute space, and that the distances between these spatial points induce distances between the particles. The particles therefore possess their distance relations by virtue of the geometrical relations antecedently present in the space in which they are contained.


By contrast, the relationist will hold that the particles possess distances with respect to each other directly, i.e. without the intervention of an underlying space, and that Newtonian space only furnishes a mathematical representation of these physical distance relations.


In the case of field theories, the relationist has to assume that elementary field-parts possess spatial relations with respect to each other, and that there are coincidence relations between the parts of different fields. It has to be noted that this characterization lacks bite if no restrictions are imposed on what counts as a physical field. For example, if the metrical field of special relativity were accepted as a bona-fide physical field, the above characterization would qualify special relativity as a fully relational theory; and a similar manoeuvre could be performed in the case of Newtonian theory.


Newton’s absolute space or Minkowski spacetime would become physical systems themselves, so that the state of the world would become fully describable in terms of relations between physical systems. But this is clearly not what the relationist intends: for him Newtonian absolute space or Minkowski absolute spacetime are very different from physical systems.


Leibniz already provided a criterion here, by stipulating that physical ‘‘substances’’ should not only act but should also be acted upon — his relationism is meant to be about the relations between such substances. Newtonian space and Minkowski spacetime clearly are no substances in Leibniz’s sense, since they constitute an inert background that cannot be changed. This obviates the just-mentioned strategy by means of which classical mechanics or special relativity could be construed as relational.


However, in the general theory of relativity the metrical field does become dynamical, so that within this theory the state of the universe may be considered as completely specified by the coincidence relations between physical systems.


The plausibility of this viewpoint obviously depends on whether one is prepared to go along with accepting the metrical field as a physical system that is on a par with the matter fields. If one does, general relativity appears as the vindication of relationalism. If one does not, general relativity appears as not amiable to relationalism after all: the theory allows possible universes in which there are no matter fields, so that in those universes there is only empty spacetime.


It follows that in general relativity spacetime cannot be reduced to matter fields and their relations — at least not always. This may be taken as a vindication of substantivalism with respect to space and time. However, within the context of general relativity the difference between these two options might be considered slight and first of all semantical, depending as it does on whether we consider the metrical field as a physical field or not.


Rovelli infers that as a consequence space and time have disappeared from physics. What he means is that space and time no longer enter as independent entities, on top of what is already determined by all the coincidence relations between the dynamical fields. The spacetime structure is already present in the structure of the fields and their interrelations.


Reality keeps itself in place. Objects interact with other objects, and this is reality. Reality is the net of these interactions. We do not need an external entity to hold this net. We do not need Space, to hold the universe. Maybe the Copernican revolution is finally being completed.


The picture of a Universe changing from one global instant to the next is incompatible with what we know about the world.

GR inherits from SR the melting of space and time into spacetime. Therefore the relational nature of space revealed by GR extends to time as well.


It follows that in GR there is no background spacetime and therefore in particular no time along which things happen. GR teaches us that we must abandon the idea that the flow of time is an ultimate aspect of reality. The best description we can give of the world is not in terms of time evolution. The dynamics of GR itself cannot be cleanly described in terms of evolution in time.


Proper time S depends on the gravitational field, which is influenced by the interaction with many systems. Typically, harmonic oscillations are isochronous in S. Therefore, S like the distance d described in the previous section, is just an observable feature of the gravitational field, which is particularly convenient to use as a stable reference in our environment, when describing the motion of objects assuming the gravitational field fixed. The dynamics of the gravitational field itself, on the other hand, cannot be naturally described in terms of evolution in any well-defined preferred time variable.


Temporality is an artifact of our largely incomplete knowledge of the state of the world, not an ultimate property of reality.


There you have it, more or less, to keep it humble and simple.



Since we all become of this universe

Should we not ask who we are, whence we come?

Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance:

The Theory of Everything shines through!


Down… where the mind whirls round and round,

As the ear draws forth the echoing sound,

As the eye sees the light, and of the dark the fright—

We brave the crypt of cause in the depths of night,


Beyond all death, despair, love, and sorrow,

Past yesterday, today, and tomorrow…

To the fathoms of the cryptic,

Where substance slept with arithmetic,


Toward the spark yet nursed by embers,

To the first and last the Cosmos remembers—

To seek the gem that shines—the wealth of mines,

The jewels so treasured by thee and thine.


We guide thee; we must carry thee;

We’re illumination beside thee.

Fear not the proof—

It’s the beauty of the truth.


You do not just live and love; you are life and love.

They do not flee on, just ahead, unreachable,

Leaving you but to lean and drink their wind.

You are the universe turned around to view itself.


Zest, desire, caring, and other feelings sweet

Are your lightning feet for triumphant feats.

All manner of shapes haunt the wilds of the mind,

Just waiting and asking to be tamed as sane.


You’re the golden chalice to the wine that flows;

Drink, drink!

You’re the live, resultant existence that knows.

Think, think!


Thoughts fly in the mind like birds wing the wind;

Imagination is the atmosphere wherein ideas are born

And borne on the waves of the sea in which one sees,

Thereupon sprouting from the wings into actions seized.


All from stardust begins and ends in thee.

The mighty wrecks of the elements are strewn

Across the universe like chaff from the harvest,

Much of the Cosmos still a vast wasteland.


The timeless-formless contains every path,

Though as useless as a library of All books;

For its sum of information is zero,

But one of these possible avenues became ours.


In succession due does the large give way and rule

To the ever smaller, the tiny, the minuscule,

And onto the negligibly insufficient ‘awol’

Of not really much of anything there at all.


We are as beings of the everlasting light dream,

As products time and time again by its means—

Of the eternal return, as baubles blown and burst,

Though frames of time that quench life’s thirst.


Oh, that which ‘IS’ the near imperishable,

Its flame of beauty still inextinguishable,

Deathless, ne’er created, ungenerated,

Forever celebrated as immutable!


We have often asked why some space exists,

Why it permits the countless to briefly persist

On Mother Earth, nourished under Father Sky—

All of those finite sparks that light and die.


And well before that, once upon a storied time,

We simply made it all up, with tales and rhyme,

In place of any physical observations

Or of any revealing experimentations.


Now, the surprise: Existence trumps essence!

Essence pales, in stature, to existence,

Even before we know it, which now we do;

‘Twas what had to be; life eclipses knowing.


Essence’s knowing is anti-climax;

It wasn’t fancy and complicated,

Nor could it have been—it was the simplest.

‘Hereabouts’ is where the excitement is.


What Exists, Via Necessity

  • Author: Austin P. Torney
  • Published: 2015-10-19 05:05:07
  • Words: 4966
What Exists, Via Necessity What Exists, Via Necessity