ON THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE
I have decided to publish here at Medium.com my thoughts relating to the nature of existence. I have made this decision as it has proven impossible for one like me to gain access to major creditable science publications. I have a smattering of scientific knowledge that starts back a long time ago when I attended university. For a period of six years post graduation, I worked in two major research laboratories, after which time I was compelled to look for work in whatever labor would support my family. The highest level I attained of complete education is an M.S. in Physics earned from Trinity College, Hartfiord, CT circa 1972.
The nature of what I will discuss here in a number of postings is dry and sedates the mind. For that reason, I will post the results and conclusions now. Those who wish to follow the narrative further may do so at their leisure as I post continuations to this narrative.
THE RESULTS The Conclusions
I. There are 6 dimensions of space whose ontological foundations reside in three pairs of non-self-extinguishing sequences of existential state elements.
II. There exist 2 dimensions of ‘time’; neither dimension projects upon the other (i.e., we might say these time dimensions are orthogonal). It can be conjectured that these time dimensions at some past era intersected at the present moment. It is in these independent time dimensions where matter and anti-matter may reside separately.
III. Existence is defined in 6 hierarchical states. In one or two of these hierarchies, ‘State’ is preeminent, where ‘State’ is defined by a small sub-group of elements of the existential set of elements. In another of these hierarchies, ‘Information’ is dominant, where too ‘Information’ is defined by a sub-group of elements contained in the existential set of elements. It is likely that the collapse of quantum mechanically defined wave-functions is transition from a condition of existence where ‘State’ is preeminent into a condition of existence that must manifest ‘Information’, information that is recognized in the form of entropic increase that accompanies every energetic interaction, and every spatial re-distribution.
IV. A preter-natural, sur-real generative state (‘S’) is inferred which gives rise to an existential state of oblivion (‘Ø’). Though this later state may be considered an anihilator, (‘S’) has greater power of effect than (‘Ø’). For this reason, existence trumps oblivion; absolute nothingness may exist, but ultimately the nothingness of absolute oblivion cedes to existence.
V. The power of (‘P’), Presence, is null in all hierarchies of existence. Perhaps a more familiar conceptualization of null is zero; but, in this ontological level of realization of existence, zero does not exist nor does any other number exist. Any thing raised to the power of Presence attains identity. Stated differently, ‘objects have identity’. Recognize this statement by analogy- any number raised to zero gains identity in 1, the identity element of the integers.
These are the conclusions. Surely, as other philosophers take up these considerations, most certainly there will be enhancements and refinements to these conclusions.
Musings and Ruminations
I have lived in a quaint New England town where a certain farmer maintained a herd of ten belted Dutch cows (at least that is what I believe they are). They resemble walking Oreo cookies and nearly daily I would drive by and delight in their appearance. Some days there were eight that I could count; other days ten would be visible. Some days there were less. This habitual amusement caused me to abbreviate my though process so that I found myself qualifying my ‘field’ of cows thinking ‘absent two’, ‘absent three’, or whatever the case might be on that given day. There were other days when I recited silently ‘present ten’, ‘present eight’ and so on. Upon further reflection, I recognized ‘Absent’ and ‘Present’ as attributes that sufficed to qualify my field (my set) of cows.
This sort of existential qualification of objects is extensible to a solitary cow, to any object, to a set of one element, to the empty set. The attributes of ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ are more amply understandable when applied to a single object. But, what is the meaning of invoking an object. What is meant when we say, ‘there is a whatever present or whatever absent’. Specifically, what is meant in its fullest implication when the word-thought process ‘to be’ is invoked with all the implications that spawn from usage of the infinitive ‘to be’, its conjugation, participles, and other parts of speech. The invocation of any form of the concept of existence borne in the context of ‘to be’ and of the derivatives of the notions of ‘to be’ is invocation of space-time in an indirect shadowy slight of mind construction. This understanding is central to what follows: the usage, the invocation of ‘to be’ is existential; to invoke or qualify an object by the usage of ‘to be’ is invocation of the object’s space-time status masqueraded in all the costumery of the existential foundation of space-time.
Let’s delve a bit. To say that a cow is ‘present’ (remember the farm) is to say with some specificity that the cow is located at a certain place at a certain time. More formally, the cow has spatial coordinates, call then x,y,z, and time coordinate, t. Presence (P) limits the cow to this specific set of coordinates in the present moment, t. Absence (A) specifies that the cow is not present at that set of coordinates. For the set of ten cows, absence specifies the set of cows or a portion of the set of cows is not in the domain of spatial parameters described by the farm.
The realm of spatial coordinates and the present moment have been, so to speak, covered with the foregoing ruminations of presence and absence. What about the past? Have these types of reflections exposed enough about the trajectory of current events that finally devolves to past events? And the future, have we said anything that at least augurs the course of conditions and events to be. Should we think that future be considered as the coming of events? Using our coordinate names, do we rationalize future as an increasing t coordinate that pours forward from the present moment as if the present moment is a spitting source of all that will be. Or, should future be considered as emerging from pre-configurations of possibilities that permit a logically coherent present moment to emerge? And that the death of the present moment is the future, a future foundationalized solely by the deposit of information left behind.
The previous paragraph inverts the traditional perception of the flow of time. There is no future per se as is currently entrenched and visualized in living minds. Future, as we know it and apply it, has proven a handy parameterization to facilitate formalization of the behavior of physical systems. But this same interpretation of time, past, present, and future, permits the construction of contradictions and logically untenable conclusions. Consider ‘time travel’. In the realm of logic and mathematic proof, proof by contradiction is a common method used to prove or dis-prove given hypotheses. Why then allow a system of hypotheses that refute logical inference? At best, one can theorize that logical paradoxes that may arise from time-travel scenarios can be overcome by proposing a superposition of logically tenable time paths such that our traveler may emerge back to a logically consistent present. A solution of this type allows the preservation of logical inference and potential elimination of paradox. However, any solution of multiple paths only compounds the problem of tenability. Occam revolts at even the intimation of a ‘many worlds’ kind of reality. Today, no one has found supportable evidence for a ‘many worlds’ parallel existence of all alternatives other than in the minds of theorists who search for explanations of the heretofore mysterious implications of quantum logic.
To be continued in Part II : Next, finding a ‘generative pre-cursurial state’ and development of the complete set of elements of existence will be discussed.