A world is a possible state of affairs. This world is the only actual state of affairs.

I don’t think so. It’s not “a world” for the actualist, because there isn’t more than one; there’s only this actual world. — Luke

Actualists still use the language of “possible worlds”, and did so before modal realism existed; the novel thing about modal realism is taking that kind of talk literally instead of just metaphorically.

Actualists still use the language of “possible worlds”, and did so before modal realism existed; the novel thing about modal realism is taking that kind of talk literally instead of just metaphorically. — Pfhorrest

Right, and actualists use the language of possible worlds metaphorically to talk about the possibilities of this world only, as I’ve been saying. If the possibility that this world gets permanently annihilated were to be realised, then there would no longer be “a world”, or logical possibility, or logic.

What's happening here is a confusion about quantification.

Actualists suppose that everything that exists is actual.

But there are several ways of using exists; one of which is displayed clearly by the existential quantifier. Existential quantification can range over things that are not actual - hobbits, possible aliens, and so on.

Actualists make the mistake of thinking that the way 'exists' is used in 'everything that exists is actual' must be the same as the way it is used when we parse "In a hole there lived a hobbit" as "There exists a hobbit how lives in a hole". They get confused, because they think this implies hobbits must be actual.

What's a better candidate for an eternal thing and/or an uncaused cause, a physical universe or a god? My bet is on a god. — RogueAI

Some ancient thinkers assumed that the physical world had existed forever. But others intuited entropy, and guessed that the existing world would eventually wind down to nothing, hence they concluded that a finite world must have an infinite Cause : a creator or precursor of some kind. We now have scientific evidence that our universe has not always existed, but emerged long ago from a sudden creative event. Combine that cosmic contingency (dependence on something outside the self) with the unavoidable certainty of entropy (e.g. death), and we are forced by logic to assume some external -- outside of our knowable space-time -- cause for the existence of all physical things.

Today, we have only two plausible candidates for that First Cause : a> an eternal non-physical creator, or b> an eternal physical multiverse. Option <a> is questionable, because we have no sensible experience with entities having no extension in Time or Space. But option <b> is also dubious, because our experience with the only knowable universe indicates that dynamic creative energy (in a closed system) always runs-down to total entropy over time. So again, we are dependent on some source of power outside our world to provide the impetus for a Big Bang, or for a Genesis event. The Multiverse option tries to avoid the First Cause/Power Source solution, by claiming it's merely physical causal-turtles all the way down to . . . . what?

Sadly, any logical choice between those alternative unknowable scenarios is ultimately opaque to human experience, and rests instead on personal preference or prejudice. That being the case, we can't be certain that our chosen world creator exists in any meaningful sense. Yet, we do know that physical systems tend to fall apart over time, and that mental (meta-physical) systems are dependent upon physical substrates for their metaphysical existence. So again, the choice of Cause is a toss-up.

The related question of "why is there something rather than nothing" presupposes that there is someone to ask the question. Hence, whatever the Cause of our known "something" may be, it must have the power or potential to create something with Awareness & Willpower from some prior "thing". That much is certain. But that a priori "thing" could be a> ordinary Matter, or b> ordinary Energy, or c> extraordinary Substance as proposed by Spinoza. Therefore, I conclude that the First & Final Cause of my existence in a contingent world must be both Infinite & Eternal : call it "G*D" or "Nature" as you Will. :cool:


Metaphysical Existence : metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
Note : Physical existence is objective : "I see it, therefore it is". Metaphysical existence is subjective : "I imagine it, therefore it's essence is". Essence (ousia) is a defining property. e.g. Mathematical properties are subjective, but derived by reason from objective physical knowledge.

Substance Monism : The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Existential quantification can range over things that are not actual — Banno

Only by being (or making the clause) literally false.

They get confused, because they think this implies hobbits must be actual. — Banno

Only if they think the story is literally true.

"A hobbit walked into Mordor" is true in the domain of Lord of the Rings. IF he didn't walk in to Mordor, then how was the ring destroyed?

Moreover, there are innumerable true modal statements ranging over things that are not actual.

You are using the word "literally" to mark a domain of discourse.

Actualists suppose that everything that exists is actual. — Banno

That's an interesting philosophical concept. For example, in what sense is Bitcoin actual? Perhaps it becomes actualized when a coin miner cashes-in the current value of his imaginary coins. Until then though, the bitcoin "money" exists only in the form of abstract information (data) on a worldwide distributed network of mindless & soulless computers. Therefore, until actualized, Bitcoin has only Potential value. To sell your coins you must make the buyer believe that it has actual cash value. So, in what sense is your belief in the value of your abstract coins reality based? Is Bitcoin Something or Nothing? Actual or Notional? Real or Imaginary? :chin:

PS___Many years ago, my brother was convinced that the US should return to the Gold Standard, based on a similar notion : that only actual (physical) money is real. Anything else is fake-money, non-existent, like "vaporware". But, even the currency value of Gold -- beyond its intrinsic value as an industrial metal -- is based on Faith in an emotional system of human beliefs & values. Reportedly, Trump was also in favor of the Gold Standard. Perhaps, that's because it is tangible, and appeals to the physical senses with its glimmer & heft. Also, because he wouldn't have to place his faith in the integrity of fellow humans -- some of whom may be grifters & con-men, or Mexicans. Another hypothetical, if Trump became dictator of the US. he might prefer "fiat" currency, In that case, its value would be whatever he dictated by fiat. :joke:

Bitcoin : Like fiat currencies, Bitcoin is not backed by any physical commodity or precious metal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
Note : which is better : fiat or faith? Command or cooperation?

Vaporware : software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.

Fiat :
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort According to the Bible, the world was created by fiat. 2 : an authoritative determination : dictate a fiat of conscience. 3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree government by fiat.

THE VALUE OF MONEY

in what sense is Bitcoin actual? — Gnomon

It's the same for paper money. It's the same for ownership of any sort.

But off topic.

It's the same for paper money. It's the same for ownership of any sort.
But off topic. — Banno

Sorry. I had just read an article about Bitcoin. Hence the discursive diversion off-topic. But what if it was actually a prologue to an on-topic post, that didn't actually exist -- until now?

So, the relevance to this thread is that Bitcoin is treated as-if it's a real thing, even though the "coins", and their ownership, only exist as notions in human minds. That raised the question in my mind about its actuality -- its reality. "As-if" is not real existence, but an ideal mode of being.

I had never heard of the philosophy of Actualism, but I suppose it's a variant of Realism, and opposed to Idealism. So, I wondered if Potential money had any meaning in that philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between Actual and Potential, but treated Potential as-if it's a potent force in the real world. Perhaps Potential exists only as a Possibility or Probability. And it would be easy to dismiss such non-existing non-actual things as equivalent to Nothing. Like Bitcoin, statistical Probability does not exist, until actualized. Yet, it's a useful & meaningful concept for those of us who are not Actualists. :smile:

OP --- "argument for existence :
1. Things (God and/or matter) either always existed or spontaneously emerged.
2. Therefore there is no Cause either way."

According to cosmologists, our space-time world did not exist, as such, prior to the Big Bang Prime Cause. But, as OP noted, logically Something must have existed, unless Spontaneous Generation is a real thing. Some call that necessary Actualizer "God" (i.e. eternal Mind), while others call it "Multiverse" (i.e. eternal Matter). The M'verse theory assumes that Matter actually existed forever, while the God theory supposes, as an axiom, that the divine Potential for our world existed eternally before the Causal act of creation. Therefore, we have a choice between an Actual material Cause and a Potential mental Cause. Hence, there must a Cause either way. No?

Per Actualism : "to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual"
So, in what sense can God or M'verse be said to exist? If they are not here & now, are they Nothing? A mere figment of imagination? Or the potent Cause of all actual things? . . . . Why is there something? Because there was always the Potential for something. :cool:

"A hobbit walked into Mordor" is true in the domain of Lord of the Rings. — Banno

But is there, in all of Heaven and Earth, a domain of Lord of the Rings, containing hobbits?

So, in what sense can God or M'verse be said to exist? If they are not here & now, are they Nothing? A mere figment of imagination? Or the potent Cause of all actual things? . . . . Why is there something? Because there was always the Potential for something. — Gnomon

Why is there Something Instead of Nothing?
Off-topic diversion continued . . . . chasing the elusive butterfly of Why?
Another "simple desultory philippic" ???
Feel free to ignore these rambling wonderings.
But, remember that Wonder is the philosophical emotion.

Per Actualism : "to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual"

The weak point in that assertive affirmation is the word "Actual", which is the opposite of Potential, and implies an act of transforming a pre-existing Possibility into a currently existing Actuality. If so, our actual world is contingent, and there was also the alternative possibility of non-existence. Hence, the assertion contains the seed of its own negation. Whatever exists must have been actualized or created by some prior Power or Potential. Knowledge of that a priori Something could point toward a meaningful answer to "why?".

Another thread on this forum asserts that "Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence". That very long post attempts to support that questionable conclusion with philosophical reasoning. Yet, "Infinity" is not a provable actuality in our real world. It's merely the conceptual negation of "Finite". So, to assert that Actual Existence (physical reality) is infinite seems to go beyond our ability to know such things. Of course, our physical universe could conceivably be unbounded in space & time, but our means of measurement are limited by the speed of light, which forms a boundary to our observations. Hence to claim that “existence” is infinite (as in Multiverse theories), sounds more like a statement of faith, than of fact. So, we could just as well assume that before the Big Bang, there was nothing Actual --- perhaps only unknowable Potential.

Therefore, this thread's topical "why" question seems to logically require some Outside (transcendent) Force, or Actualizing Agent, to convert non-existence (nothingness) into existence (somethingness). Whatever, that exotic Actor might be, it alone could provide a knowledgeable answer to the "why" question. Yet, some early human thinkers assumed, as an axiom, that their world was eternal, and didn't bother themselves with questions about origins or beginnings. But philosophers, and some scientists, are not known for leaving well-enough alone. So, they deign to ask hypothetical “why” & “how” questions. Yet, “why” questions go beyond the scope of physical science, to inquire about meta-phyical Reasons for Being. Moreover, reasons are properties of conscious agents, not aimless atoms.

In the current issue of SKEPTIC magazine, one article is entitled "How did it all begin?". Which seems to be related to the topic of this thread. The transition from Nothing to Something implies a Point of Beginning -- the locus of the act of Actualization. And the article attempts to supply a scientific & physical answer. First, it notes that "modern cosmologists cannot resist exploring models which neatly incorporate any date in the past, even one predating the beginning of our current universe." Apparently, the notion of a self-existent universe does not make sense, so they are logically motivated to explain Why there is Something. Although our current entropic universe seems to be finite, anything prior to the beginning might not be so limited.

Unfortunately, the only solution offered in the article is an imaginary scientific hypothesis, not an observation of something physically Actual. It says, "Inflation explains why there was a 'bang' and even provides a 'banger' . . . in the form of an exotic form of energy known as a quantum field". So, their answer to "how" and "why" is a barely existing exotic non-thing that was originally proposed, in desperation, as a solution to the frustrating quest for the fundamental building block of the Actual real world. An early unproven hypothesis was Atomism : something you can't see or touch is responsible for the stuff that you know as actual reality. So far, we have found no such concrete foundation, so theorists are reduced to proposing fluffy clouds of invisible intangible insubstantial potential (virtual) causal power. Which, ironically, sounds a lot like an ancient ghostly creative Deity. That being the case, have we really made progress in understanding ultimate “why” questions? :cool:

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? : Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? : Not Anymore
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=5a88f917b45e

You are using the word "literally" to mark a domain of discourse. — Banno

You are using the phrase "domain of discourse" to confuse use and mention. (See above.) Which is a bad habit.

Moreover, there are innumerable true modal statements ranging over things that are not actual. — Banno

Which is hooking it to your veins.

Use and mention? Are you suggesting Tolkien mentioned Hobbits but did not use them?

:roll:

"Pegasus flies" is true in the domain of winged horses.

is no kind of an argument that winged horses exist in some related sense of the word.

...related... — bongo fury

Always leave the quantifier hanging. Then you make no commitment.

related...
— bongo fury
Always leave the quantifier hanging. Then you make no commitment. — Banno

That, er, needs developing. I suppose I can understand if you would rather not.

That, er, needs developing. — bongo fury

You've not made a cogent point this last page. Go back to this:

What's happening here is a confusion about quantification.

Actualists suppose that everything that exists is actual.

But there are several ways of using exists; one of which is displayed clearly by the existential quantifier. Existential quantification can range over things that are not actual - hobbits, possible aliens, and so on.

Actualists make the mistake of thinking that the way 'exists' is used in 'everything that exists is actual' must be the same as the way it is used when we parse "In a hole there lived a hobbit" as "There exists a hobbit how lives in a hole". They get confused, because they think this implies hobbits must be actual. — Banno

And make your reply compelling.

There is always something... That's the magic of existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM

There is not nothing(ness); therefore, there is something.

But I have nothing in my pocket... so there is nothing and hence nothing exists.

The best way to approach the growing number of threads is to point out that the logic they are using has been superseded.

Existence is not a thing. — Banno

Does the pocket contain itself? :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM

Fuck I'm sick of folk arguing by posting YouTube videos.

Use Your Words!

You can answer my question for starters, does the pocket contain itself? does the universe contain itself?

I think that indeed it does.
U \subset U \subset U\subset \ldots ad infinitum, so nothing cannot really exist.

I'm sorry you're upset.

I don't suppose you could clarify whether you hold this notion,

that everything that exists is actual. — Banno

to be itself mistaken? Maybe I jumped to the conclusion that you do.

I wondered if you had a better argument against it than the fact that we make up fictions?

Yawn.

... Apparently not.

But I have nothing in my pocket... so there is nothing and hence nothing exists. — Banno

C'mon, reifying an idiom is silly. "I do not have anything in my pocket" is clearer and synonymous with "my empty pocket". Nothing has nothing to do with nothing.

So existence isn't random or determined, but...arbitrary?