SOMETHING FROM NOTHING:
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF METAPHYSICS

ANIL MITRA ©  March 2013

Home | Contact

OUTLINE

Introduction

Proof

More

Journey in Being

 

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OFMETAPHYSICS

Introduction

Why is there a world? There could be nothing at all. Science and experience explain how—part of—the world behaves but do not explain why there is a world. There are tentative explanations from science, philosophy, and common sense. However, there is no well known proof beyond all doubt that there must be a world.

The being of the world is a puzzle. If you think about it more than in passing you might find it a problem that is both deep and mysterious. In 6.44 of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein said ‘Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.’ Heidegger regarded it as the ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics’. Today, in the first quarter of the twentieth century there are tantalizing suggestions from science. There is fairly widespread interest in the problem.

I have thought on this problem for quite a while. I have written on it. A number of essays on my website http://www.horizons-2000.org (Journey in Being) address it. Early in my thought I felt that if I could show that the universe and the void (nothingness) are equivalent then I would have the foundation of a final or ultimate worldview or metaphysics or philosophy of Being.

In 2002, I had an insight into how the void is equivalent to the universe. I wrote the insight up as a demonstration or proof. In the years since I have refined the proof, developed a metaphysics centered on it, and elaborated the metaphysics and drawn consequences from it for science, philosophy, logic, religion—and other disciplines—and the human endeavor. This is all available at the Journey in Being website. However, I have not written up the demonstration of the fundamental principle of metaphysics’ as a separate essay (there are some fragmentary notes on the website from backpacking trips but these do not count as ‘essays’.)

Proof

The demonstration that follows is skeletal. Details are at the Journey in Being website.

Being is that which exists.

The universe is all Being.

Whatever has any Being at all is in the universe.

Whatever is in the universe has Being.

The laws of science are our readings of patterns.

The patterns themselves are the immanent Laws.

The Laws have Being.

All Laws are in the universe.

The void is the absence of Being.

As complement of the universe, the void exists.

There are no Laws in the void.

If from the void there is some state that does not emerge that would be a Law of the void.

From the void all states emerge.

If the universe were in a non-manifest or void state then ‘something’ would emerge from the void.

This concludes the proof.

More

In fact ‘every’ state emerges from the void and so the void is without limit.

Therefore the universe and every part of it is without limit.

What does that mean? It means precisely that every state is realized.

Well—almost precisely. While Being itself does not harbor contradiction, I can conceive a contradiction and therefore if I have a concept of a self-contradictory state that state is not realized. However the concept is self contradictory and therefore not the concept of an actual state.

More generally if I have a concept that violates logic, there is no corresponding state.

This constraint on concepts arises from the freedom to form absurd even illogical concepts which is part of the creative power of concepts. Such constraints on concepts are not limits on the universe.

However, we know that our logics are imperfect—except of course in trivial cases. I therefore redefine Logic as the system of constraints on concepts that they be realized.

Logic is the only ‘limit’ on Being. The universe has infinite freedom—and more. Its freedom is limitless.

This freedom is conferred on all individuals for the contrary would be a limit on the universe and therefore on the void.

Journey in Being

Numerous questions arise. Is the proof above valid? Does not this freedom contradict experience? Even if it is not a contradiction what are the implications for intellectual and existential (living) pursuits?

These issues and more are addressed at http://www.horizons-2000.org (Journey in Being).