After receiving feedback from the previous essay, I realized that there were several topics I could expand upon. I decided to next write about some thoughts I’ve had on existence. That is what I'll do here:
I believe that the concept of objective existence is a stumbling block that impedes our understanding of nature. It can be easily understood that existence is, and must be, expressed in terms of relationships. However, despite this inseparable quality of existence, the notion that some 'thing' could exist without relationship (or even before relationship), is difficult to clear from the mind.
This contradiction of concept and evidence is reinforced due to the way that we operate in our world. In our day-to day experience, when we interact with something new, we understand that it existed before we interacted with it. We then understandably extrapolate this experience onto our overall concept of nature. In addition to this, I believe the logical conundrum of ‘boot-strapped existence’ makes the concept of objective existence somehow attractive.
The boot-strapped concept of existence considers that all things that do exist do so through a self-sustained closed cycle of relationship. It is the notion of boot-strapped existence that leads to the questions: "What is outside the Universe?" or "What came before the Universe?" Boot-strapped existence is not an alternative to the concept of objective existence. A boot-strapped concept of existence simply moves the contradiction of existence without relationship, it does not eliminate it.
Instead, to have a more useful view of existence, we should consider how existence is determined.
Defining existence is a process of describing relationships. Existence and relationship are inseparable. For this reason, it is worth considering that existence may not be a state to be described by relationships, but is a quality of relationships, and nothing more. To use an analogy: it might be useful to consider that our notions of existence and non-existence are akin to our notions of hot and cold.
Colloquially, we often speak of hot and cold as if they are states or opposing entities. This is hot. That is cold. We know they are not. Temperature is the kinetic energy of molecular motion. Hot and cold are relative descriptions comparing multiple temperatures. In fact, when we consider the possibility of an absolute zero state, the notions of hot and cold become meaningless. With absolute zero, we need only to provide the Kelvin to describe an object's temperature.
Similarly, it may be useful to view existence and non-existence, not as two possible and opposing states, but to consider that existence is itself a description of relative relationships. Or, to further extend the analogy: existence is a relative abundance of relationships, as hot is a relative abundance of molecular energy, and non-existence is a relative paucity of relationships, as cold is a relative paucity of molecular energy.
It is interesting that zero Kelvin may be unattainable. The same might be true of non-existence, -the absolute lack of relationship.
In my next essay, I will discuss what might constitute a ‘relationship’.
i have a bit of trouble with the term "relationship." after all, as a term, it organically developed to describe connections between things thought to have objective existence. i realize this is a bucket-o-crabs problem, and that we have to begin untangling the Möbius strip somewhere, but language may become a problem down the line -- as it often does, smuggling in connotations which don't work at extreme levels of zoom.
i don't really want to alter the trajectory of your journey -- i'd much rather go along and see where it leads. but i personally approach this matter by attacking individuality, rather than existence. SOMEthing exists. we simply have a hard time describing it. we pretend that this thing of things is separable, composed of discrete parts as an old grandfather clock seems to be. that we, who are in fact a part of it, can remain separate from the the rest of it. such illusions are necessary in order to maintain the conventions of civilization and the conceits of humanity, but when regarded very closely, the idea of separation breaks down, turns out to be entirely artificial. this is all quite pivotal for existence, which, as i have just been reminded, literally (historically, etymologically) means "to stand forth/to stand out." we are thus turned back to the question of the pre-socratics, which is how to reconcile the one with the many, and flux with permanence.
excited to see where this thread goes! must continue, among other ways, over cocktails.
-cW
Not so much poking fun, because it seems too popular.
>i have a bit of trouble with the term "relationship." after all, as a term, it organically developed to describe connections between things thought to have objective existence. i realize this is a bucket-o-crabs problem
Therein lies the rub, eh? I am going to take a crack at the root of that in my next essay. What is relationship? Do you have to say that things either objectively exist, or it's turtles all the way down? That's the issue to me. I realize that everything we say is loaded, but maybe if we catch ourselves saying something similar enough, we might reveal something useful, or maybe something even more confounding. :) But, I still have a bit of road in my headlights. The next couple of essays will be backtracking for me. After that, maybe a cliff.
>i don't really want to alter the trajectory of your journey -- i'd much rather go along and see where it leads.
No worries, but thanks, me too!
>but i personally approach this matter by attacking individuality, rather than existence...
I believe there is truth there. If everything relates, what is individuality? But then, what does this whole relate to? Can something be defined by its within, and have no without? I think the notions of flux and permanence are actually where consistency might be found. What if there is no without, but only a never-ending, ever-diminishing of the within? What if the within (that we deem to exist) is such, when it is fully understood, that the notion of a without is nonsensical?
>excited to see where this thread goes! must continue, among other ways, over cocktails. Thanks, and yes!
Expressed, maybe. The expression of existence being relationships cannot translate/extend to the nature of just existence itself. There is no way to prove if existence does or does not exist outside of our expression or subjectivity because we have no means to do so. And "relationships" are defined completely subjectively.
The whole thing seems to relate to what you are thinking about here. I wouldn't suggests wading into that material without taking a class, what you read and what they are saying are two hard things to reconcile.
>I wouldn't suggests wading into that material without taking a class, what you read and what they are saying are two hard things to reconcile.
This is a good point, and I think it gets to something practical. You can read what I wrote here, and walk away wondering if I am just spinning in a useless eddy of my mind, or establishing a toehold on something worthwhile. It's really impossible for the reader to know. Only what emerges from a body of work can hope to reveal that, I think.
I have much more that I want to address, thoughts that I've accumulated over years, and my plan is just to simply lay them out one way or another. In short, I want to put what I have been thinking to text, and see what comes of it. I'd personally like to have a reference that I can look at, so I can be sure of what I like and what I don't. Most of this is based on what I see as evidence for nothing but relativism, influenced by my physics education.
>One thing my professor convinced me of is that we are living in our own myths to which we have scientific supports, but which over time will probably be abandoned (hopefully for more scientific myths).
Absolutely. But that itself is a truth. Truth seems to be a pattern, and never a thing.