Home | April 2, 2006

Hi Bill and Joan

Thanks for your note. Actually, I advocate nothing. That was an unintended pun; I meant that I do not advocate anything that is not self-evident (after reflection...)

The four primary concepts are being, universe, void, and logic:

Being - that which exists or which has existence

Universe - all being viewed temporally or over time

Void - absence of being; absence not only of things but also of laws... Logic - the theory of possibility

More needs to be said to bring out the meaning of these ideas and to address associated problems that have been brought up in the literature

The development of the Theory of Being is simple in outline. 1. The void exists; it is what is left when the universe is subtracted from itself. The existence of the void may seem paradoxical but the apparent paradox is similar to that of the empty set. Members of the empty set do not exist but the set itself does. Similarly there is no existing thing in the void but the void itself exists. What does 'exist' mean? The only good answer that I know is in 'Journey in Being.' The treatment in the literature abounds with pseudo-paradoxes. 2. Consider a description, X, of some state of affairs. If X did not result from the void, that would be a law. Therefore X must result. The only exception is when X is not a true description i.e. if the description contains or entails a contradiction. Therefore, the state described by X must result from the void. Every state whose description involves no contradiction must result from the void which exists. Thus the only limits on actuality are those of logic (avoidance of contradiction.) Now the actual must be possible. What is the 'possible?' We think of the possible as something that does obtain or could obtain e.g. in other circumstances. But in the universe (all being) there are no 'other circumstances.' Therefore, the actual = the possible and includes all descriptions that satisfy logic. I.e. Logic (capitalized) is the one law of the Universe; particular logics are the 'laws' that define particular contexts

The concept that relates the infinite degree of actuality in the entire universe is that of the 'normal.' Although any description is realized not all descriptions are equally realized; the ones that are most commonly realized are 'normal.' Our cosmos (the one that physicists call 'the universe') is a normal cosmos. Obviously, a cosmos such as ours is an infinitesimal part of the universe; in fact our cosmos must be infinitely repeated (in e.g. space and time) and even that recurrence is an infinitesimal part of the universe. The laws of physics and the general causal (like) and phases of deterministic (like) behavior in our cosmos are 'normal.' Translating... what is normally (in our world) thought of as contingently (i.e. not logically) impossible is only improbable; this includes 'violation' of the laws. In addition to the infinitesimal state that is the infinite recurrence of this cosmos there must be an infinity of similar infinite recurrences; this is still infinitesimal; and occurs against a background of infinite but mostly ephemeral actuality. What makes our cosmos likely, and going backwards in time unlikely (though possible) is that more than ephemerality requires adaptation among certain ephemera (the formation of a normal cosmos is one of chance but since it is more than ephemeral in nature the apparent population of the universe is predominantly normal; apparently is meant literally because the ephemera may well dominate but have no interactions and are therefore invisible -they do not interact with retinas and antennae of radio telescopes- to normal organisms

And so on

I am currently writing a short version of Journey in Being. On the right of the home page, under 'Narrative' click 'In-process 2006.' That document has a link 'Main topics, concepts and propositions.' These two documents constitute the working version

Take care

Anil