We may be able to theorize that "existence is evolutionary"; we may be able to ascertain a tendency toward organization. I have problems thinking of that as explaining why there is something rather than nothing, however. — Ciceronianus

Why do you keep framing this as a problem of "something rather than nothing" when that has already been agreed as a self-contradicting metaphysics?

There is something. Therefore nothingness was never going to be the general case. And if it's ontic role is reduced to being some stage in a general evolutionary trajectory, everyone usually agrees nothing can come from nothing. On the other hand, it doesn't seem problematic to posit a general nothingness as the ultimate cosmic future. We already know from the Big Bang that the Cosmos certainly appears to have the creation of an eternalised Heat Death void in mind.

So drop the "something rather than nothing". It's the first thing to get chucked out here.

As the OP stated:

But as something does actually exist rather than nothing this to me proves that nothing is actually impossible to exist. — Deus

Does the universe exist in order to evolve, or does the evolution take place because it exists? — Ciceronianus

Does matter exist without a form? Does form exist without being enmattered?

Holism is about the hylomorphic unity of substantial actuality. You are talking like a reductionist in wanting to make matter and form two different species of thingness rather than the complementary aspects of the one holistic thing.

The super-explanation I was thinking of, which I think is the goal of the question necessitated by the form of the question (why something instead of nothing) would be an explanation along the lines of "there's something because the universe was created for a reason." — Ciceronianus

And opposed to the transcendence of the reductionist is the immanence of the holist. The question becomes why something and not everything? Why a state of structured order and not some wild material chaos? The answer is then found within.

The universe was not created for a reason - as if there were some higher power it needed to answer to. Instead the universe emerged as a persisting stable structure because it discovered reason. It was organised by the inevitability of a rational or logical structure. The cosmos is itself the expression of evolutionary reasonableness.

↪Agent Smith
It strikes me that the question, as stated, should never arise. Why assume that "something" requires an explanation because it exists rather than or instead of nothing?
— Ciceronianus — 180 Proof

Possibilities: Something/Nothing
Actuality: Something
Why (is there something rather than nothing)?

PSR (the principle sufficient reason): If x then there's got to be a reason¹/cause²/explanation³ for x.

PSR (the principle sufficient reason): If x then there's got to be a reason1/cause2/explanation3 for x. — Agent Smith

Why? :roll:

Why? :roll: — 180 Proof

The question answers itself! You won't rest until I prove the PSR and that's exactly what the PSR is - there's always a reason/cause/explanation for things.

And the sufficient reason for the PSR?

And the sufficient reason for the PSR? — 180 Proof

Two way to answer that question:

1. Everything we claim hasta have a reason (logic, surely you don't object to that), every event has a perfectly good explanation (science), and last but not the least, every entity that exists has a cause that brought it into existence (no data collected so far is an exception to this rule unless you believe magicians do really pull rabbits outta their hats).

2. An analogy: If someone tells me that I have a red pen in my right trouser pocket, I check my pocket to find out. What am I actually doing? Assuming there is a red pen in my pocket & testing that hypothesis.

Likewise if I ever want to prove the PSR wrong, I have to assume it is true; in other words the PSR is a supposition you'll always havta make, even if it is to disprove it.

:worry:

As Hume points out: "causal relations" (i.e. sufficient reasons) are only inferred "habits of association" (inductions) and not observed. — 180 Proof

So 'the cause of causality' doesn't precipitate an infinite regress, Smith, or beg the question?

Is it your position that randomness is explained as the effect of a cause?

Or that reality is explained, even if only in principle, by some 'reason beyond reality?'

As Hume points out: "causal relations" (i.e. sufficient reasons) are only inferred "habits of association" (inductions) and not observed. — 180 Proof

In my humble opinion, the idea of causation has evolved since Hume made his claim, that it's simlply the constant conjunction of one event and another. Nowadays there's also the mechanism of causation to consider - correlation which Hume is all about just won't cut it these days. Take for instance the correlation between alcohol, the cause, and its effects on the brain. Scientists go down to the molecular level to explain how C₂H₅OH produces its neurological effects. In short Hume's take on causation is hopelessly outdated/obsolete.

So 'the cause of causality' doesn't precipitate an infinite regress, Smith, or beg the question?

Is it your position that randomness is explained as the effect of a cause?

Or that reality is explained, even if only in principle, by some 'reason beyond reality?' — 180 Proof

Can I get back to you later. I'm in a bit off a jam right now! Cops! :rofl: Au revoir wise one!

You've got nothing, man. Don't bother. Consider my questions koans to ponder. :sparkle:

Consider my questions koans to ponder. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Aye! See ya around homo viator!

Why do you keep framing this as a problem of "something rather than nothing" when that has already been agreed as a self-contradicting metaphysics? — apokrisis

So drop the "something rather than nothing". It's the first thing to get chucked out here. — apokrisis

I was under the impression from one or two posts in this thread it was a subject of discussion.

The question becomes why something and not everything? Why a state of structured order and not some wild material chaos? — apokrisis

In what sense is the question "Why is there a state of structured order instead of some wild material chaos?" significantly less problematic than the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Instead the universe emerged as a persisting stable structure because it discovered reason. It was organised by the inevitability of a rational or logical structure. The cosmos is itself the expression of evolutionary reasonableness. — apokrisis

I don't know why the universe emerged. I suspect that's not something we'll come to know through philosophy. Through physics or cosmology, perhaps. It makes sense to me that once it emerged, constituents of the universe interacted and certain things took place as a result of that interaction and continue to take place, and that we're able at least to some extent to determine why and how they took or take place. There is, then, a structure. We can make certain inferences from that, some philosophical. Keeping with the Stoic theme, for example, we may infer that wisdom is that we live "according to nature" (what we perceive to be the reason or intelligence suggested by the structure of the universe).

I don't think we can say that the universe came into being in order for the structure to be realized, though. You may have no issue with that; I'm not sure.

In what sense is the question "Why is there a state of structured order instead of some wild material chaos?" significantly less problematic than the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" — Ciceronianus

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints.

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis

Are you a platonist?

Was even Plato a Platonist? But the Timaeus traverses the right questions.

If I have to use labels, then I am a structural realist, with dissipative structure and symmetry breaking being the mathematical meat of that position.

:cool:

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure . . . — apokrisis

No it doesn't. :roll:

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure . . .
— apokrisis

No it doesn't. :roll: — jgill

Okaaaaaay. Got my buttery popcorn! :yum: :party:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01775.x

↪jgill https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01775.x — apokrisis

:gasp:

Oh, it always comes down to math, doesn't it? A real show-stopper. Who can dispute math? Not me, God (or is it math?) knows.

↪jgill
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01775.x — apokrisis

I don't see how you conclude

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure . . . — apokrisis

The lengthy and frankly overwhelming article is about biology and probability as far as I can tell without reading it carefully - If you can find "chaos" in there please point it out. The author alludes to chaotic behavior when he speaks of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in the terminology of the science, but I don't find anywhere, glancing over the paper, a reference to mathematical chaotic behavior.

One speaks of chaos mathematically in the contexts of certain dynamical systems, those having SDIC properties. Frequently these involve the complex plane, and I am familiar with this environment.

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis

I don't know if this is an assertion based on Peirce's views or on something else. If I recall correctly, though, he thought that chaos would result in structure through the development of what he called "habits" which it seems consist of actions or patterns which have already taken place. But I've always found his thoughts on this issue difficult to comprehend, though very interesting.

chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis

Math aside, this part looks interesting. I'd like to see it expanded upon.

Re: 'The map is the territory fallacy' (of idealism). — 180 Proof

I cannot see how from here you derive at the fallacy of idealism. What you argue is that the idea came on the scene, in a human mode...

If matter was all the hot stuff why do insects not consider the question? The map / territory distinction is not a fallacy, it is just that there are maps all the way down. There is no territory. Matter as the territory is just a figment of the imagination, aka, of thought. The question becomes, what is the most meaningful map? I am convinced it is love. In the craw feet, in the grey at her temples, in the curly hair and the girlish smile, there resides the ultimate question of metaphysics. That is not meaningless romantic twaddle, but it means metaphysics resides in 'you' rather than 'I' like Descartes, or even 'we' like Hegel, or 'he' like both religion and science hold.

What is the general definition of chaos? It is some maximal imagined state of disorder or unpredictability. Pure wildness. A state with the least constraint or structure possible, right?

Mathematical models then track the growth of wildness as constraints are systematically removed. Franks talks about this. A major step is from Gaussian to Powerlaw regimes. The first is merely random. It still has a variance and a mean. The second is chaotic. It now has no constraints on its variance or its mean. Or actually, it does in fact have a geometric mean to precisely define its distributiion.

So in going as far as we can go to remove constraints, we still arrive at some last constraint that can't be removed. Even the most chaotic system has this necessary residual structure.

And then remember I wrote a whole sentence and not merely half a sentence....

Because maths tells us that chaos must have structure as free possibility becomes its own system of constraints. — apokrisis

So chaos in nature - in the real world that is the subject of the OP - has this explanation. It is a general characteristic of free growth processes and dissipative structures that they attract to a powerlaw distribution. And this is because they build on themselves, preserving infomation in the way Franks describes.

Earthquakes, weather systems, turbulence and branching processes in general, are self-organising as they become the context of their own further growth. This is known as preferential attachment or the Mathew effect - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

So even when the rain falls in the hills and starts to carve out trickles, then channels, then rivers, in the landscape, we can predict the mathematical qualities that the drainage network will have. We have a yardstick of "pure randomness" against which to measure its scalefree-ness or fractal dimensionality. Every individual event might be an accident, and yet as accidents combine, they gather a weight. A flow. And that has its own necessary statistical order.

Thus getting back to the metaphysical argument of the thread, chaos is still a structured state. Even if the local events constituting some world are deemed "total accidents", there will be some form of coherent global structure that emerges from the fact that all these accidents are in interaction.

Everythingness gets reduced to somethingness because a weight of events builds its own global history of constraints. And Franks paper talks about the steps towards the most minimally constrained possible distributions – which happen to be the powerlaw regimes that in fact best describe nature in the large. Nature as a cosmic dissipative structure, expanding and cooling - or tumbling into the very heat sink it is constructing.

I don't know if this is an assertion based on Peirce's views or on something else. If I recall correctly, though, he thought that chaos would result in structure through the development of what he called "habits" which it seems consist of actions or patterns which have already taken place. — Ciceronianus

Peirce did foundational work on probability theory, but in the Gaussian regime and not the Powerlaw regime as far as I know. Cauchy distributions were around in his day, of course.

But to get back to the point I am actually making, I meant to draw attention to the way "vagueness", "chaos", "everythingness", "quantum foam" are all attempts to conceive of a state of Apeiron - of unbounded or unconstrained potential.

And all these states are then being conceived in terms of locality and independence – disordered fluctuation. But then dialectically, buried within that definition is the "other" which is what happens when there develops a history of interaction. The pendulum now swings towards global co-dependence. Every new event is adding to, or subtracting from, some collective weight of past action.

This is of course directly Peircean. The firstness of tychic possibility leading to the secondness of individual events and then the thirdness of synechic or continuous habit. Global order emerges out of free possibility as a collection of accidents have to arrive at some self-stable pattern that embodies its "flow".

Thus immanence can explain how somethingness arises from everythingness. And with the revolutions of "nonlinear" maths and physics of the second half of the last century, that became "a scientific fact". :grin:

The map / territory distinction is not a fallacy — Tobias

True. I should have written 'the map = territory fallacy" by which I mean idealists tendency for confusing – conflating – epistemology (i.e. what I/we know) & ontology (i.e. what there is), that is, there is not anything more than what I/we can 'experience'.

it is just that there are maps all the way down. There is no territory.

Always the Hegelian. That's the fallacy / incoherence of idealism I mean.

What is the general definition of chaos? — apokrisis

Mathematical models then track the growth of wildness as constraints are systematically removed — apokrisis

OK. Your presentation focuses on real world chaotic behaviors that can be approached probabilistically or statistically, not with a more precise iterative tool. I am not familiar with that approach. Thanks for the link.

The theory of chaos in a purely mathematical setting is somewhat more exact:

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary scientific theory and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws, of dynamical systems, that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, that were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.

wiki

In mathematics, a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in an ambient space.

wiki

Your presentation focuses on real world chaotic behaviors that can be approached probabilistically or statistically... — jgill

That must be the first part that Wiki calls an interdisciplinary scientific theory then.

...not with a more precise iterative tool. — jgill

That must be the branch of maths that specialises in exact algorithms which also famously can't in fact be applied to the real world (without scientific heurism) due to the SDIC/ butterfly effect.

But even your chaotic maps are only interesting if they exhibit local uncertainty paired with global order. The Lorentz strange attractor caused excitement as a model for that reason. Organisation out of chaos. The trajectories or orbits were focused in ways that gave them a fractally constrained dimensionality.

However, you are not here to discuss metaphysics. Sorry to interrupt!

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity — Wikipedia

Net Energy of the universe = 0.

Ergo, net Mass m = $\frac{E}{c^2}$ = 0

There's no something to explain or there's nothing to explain!

Don’t forget dark energy. You haven’t budgeted for that.