Sunday, May 31, 2015

3: The Source of All that Is

Last time, we discovered the network of necessary coexistence that makes up the universe. Basically, everything exists together, completely intertwined with each other, such that if ANYTHING changed, the entire universe would change.

Now, this network must have a source. All these things in this network cannot be the source of their own existence, holding each other in existence, because they cannot exist without each other. In our picture of the dog, the water does not exist except with the ball, and the ball does not exist except with the water. They are completely dependent upon each other. In reality, you cannot take the ball away from the water and call it the same moment. It only exists as it is, the ball on the water, depending completely upon each other for their mutual existence.

Everything in this network is equally dependent upon each other. If anything is taken out, it all falls apart. It must have its source, somewhere, though. There must be something, somewhere, holding the entire network together, lending it existence. That source of existence must be outside of that network. Why? Because if it was within the network of coexistence, its existence would be entirely dependent upon the rest of the network. This mutual dependence in the network is much like an arch.


The way an arch is built, two columns are leaned toward each other, leaning on each other and holding each other up. However, they do not simply begin that way. At the top of the arch is a critically important point. This is called the keystone. If the keystone comes out, the entire arch crumbles. Likewise, without some sort of keystone to hold the universe in existence at every instant, it would simply vanish into nothingness, because nothing within that network is capable of supporting its own existence independent of the rest.

Now, this source of existence must have a few very distinct characteristics. We’ll take a look at them one by one.

First off, this source of existence must be simple. Alright, term defining time. What does simple mean? It doesn’t mean small or easy to understand. Instead, here, it is being used to mean not consisting of parts. It’s only one thing, one piece. Why is this necessary? Well, because if this source of existence were made of multiple different parts, in the end, there would be one part lending existence to the others. It is both one and simple.

It must also be present to all things. This source of all existence is the reason any thing exists at any given instant. To it, all moments are present, as each thing that exists receives its existence from this source. However, at the same time, the entirety of this source of existence must be present in all things. Why? Because we have already demonstrated that it is one and simple. It is impossible to divide something that is one with no parts. It is fully present in all things, completely and entirely.
It must be completely and totally present to everything in existence at every instant. Why? Because we’ve already demonstrated previously that in each instant, a new network of coexistence is created. Each instant, everything that exists is radically dependent upon each other, and if it were not receiving its existence from outside the network.

There is one last quality that this source of coexistence must have. It must be immutable, or unchanging. Why? Because if the source of that existence were to change at all, it would be present in different ways at different times. However, we have already demonstrated that this source of existence must be fully present in its entirety at every moment for anything to exist. If it were to change, things would suddenly pop in and out of existence.


I think this is far enough to take this today, we’ll continue to draw these ideas out in the next post.

5 comments:

  1. //If it were to change, things would suddenly pop in and out of existence.//

    You mean like Virtual Particles?

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To my (albeit limited) understanding, virtual particles A. Exist only in perturbation theory calculations, which are not universally sound (see the soliton) and B. Are merely manifestations of quantum tunneling, as the mechanic of transferring energy from one thing to another. Because energy is also included in this network (true, something I never explicitly stated), I don't see how virtual particles pose a problem. Although I could be misunderstanding something, so please feel free to correct my understanding if I'm misrepresenting something.

      Delete
    2. //virtual particles A. Exist only in perturbation theory calculations, which are not universally sound//

      Re: A- The article I posted mentions experiments confirming their existence.

      B- In contrast to this wild claim:

      //Everything in this network is equally dependent upon each other. If anything is taken out, it all falls apart.//

      The fact that energy from the quantum vacuum randomly coalesces into virtual particles shows that given enough space, matter will emerge from the necessary ingredients and the stability of that matter is not guaranteed by anything else.

      There is no codependent network of existence.

      Delete
    3. A. Not denying their existence, just advising caution in diving headlonng into something without thorough evidence. If you could find the actual write up of he experiment beyond just the abstract, I'd love to see it.

      B- why must the energy from the quantum vacuum, or even the quantum vacuum itself, be excluded from the network? Your argument only holds if they're excluded (by the way, they're not)

      Delete
  2. //Because we’ve already demonstrated previously that in each instant, a new network of coexistence is created.//

    Wait a minute... If the network of coexistence adapts so that the existence of each thing is "radically codependent" on every other thing whenever something new emerges into existence, then that means the existence of all the other things was NOT dependent on the existence of the new thing prior to its emergence, therefore there is no network of coexistence, just a universe of things existing independently.

    ReplyDelete