Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

But I already did confess it. I am here to see what other people think about questions I think are important. What have I done so far that makes you think I am here to proselytize? To the contrary, I have made a conscious effort to avoid even mentioning god in any of my posts unless it somehow related to someone else's comments. I have been trying to be open-minded and honestly listen to your answers and respect your ideas. Can you point to comments of mine that show a failure in that regard? Seriously, what have I done to make you all so suspicious of my intentions?

Again, a simple "all I've been able to come up with myself is .." would probably put people at ease.  

Myself, I'm not sure why you are concerned with what is necessary in general when necessary would seem to be a relational word.

I'm glad you've taken an interest here! My aim, as alluded to above, is to examine those three propositions, but especially to learn different points of view about those propositions as well. Sometimes the way other people work through a question helps my own working it out. In the case of this thread, I can honestly say that most people have contributed to a clearer picture of the concepts for me. And I am thankful for that. I hope your own thoughts may help me as well.

[Ignorant]

Point, game and match to Boru.

Maybe so. Please see: MY RESPONSE

[Whateverist]

I agree that words don't contain any real magic, but they are the best we've got when it comes to expressing ideas. Some ideas even correspond to real things. At least that's how I see it.

Existence, at least for me, isn't a thing, but it is the most fundamental aspect which a thing does. Existence is a verb. If a thing is actually a thing, then (whatever it is) that must mean it is existing. Existence, therefore, is the nominal way by which we can describe the most fundamental "act" of any real thing. It is existing. If it isn't existing, then it can only be an idea of a thing rather than a thing actually existing.

It may well be a verb but existence is certainly not an act which a thing does. No doing required. Existence is being, not doing. We don't do the be, we be the be. So a verb, yes. But an act? No.

One more thing. I don't agree that being "just an idea" makes their existence any less real. Ideas exist as ideas. Some map onto the world of objects it is true but the others still have their existence in the life of the mind even without that mapping. Case in point: love.

I am not really interested in trying to conceive of what this necessary thing might be, at least not in this thread. I start with the dichotomy: either a thing is existing on the condition that another thing is also existing, or it is not.

Well how are you going to do that? How do you separate out correlation from causation on such a basic and general level?

(1) Most things I observe and experience exist on the condition that some other thing is also existing => If that is true (and I am pretty sure it is), then EITHER (2) ALL things are existing on the condition that some other thing is existing OR (2) Some things are existing without the condition that some other thing exists. This thread is aimed at examining those 3 propositions.

True, proposition (1) is a bunch of words, but it more or less adequately expresses an idea which I think corresponds to reality. Either (2) or (3) follow from (1) when combined with some other observation or proposition.

On the face of it, it would seem that everything is contingent at some level. Do you have an exemplar of something whose existence is not contingent at all on anything in any conceivable manner? What makes you think such a thing exists? I question whether the category you've constructed may in fact be entirely empty.

[Whateverist]

Point, game and match to Boru.

Maybe so. Please see: MY RESPONSE

Sorry, at this point I left off catching up in order to respond your direct responses to mine.  Back to it then.

[Whateverist]

To be continued.  Your response to Boru starts off better than expected but I don't have time to think more about it now.  I look forward to doing so soon, and to continuing to catch up in the thread.  (I see that Jorm has stopped in too.  Isn't she great?) Real life beckons.

[robvalue]

...So it would appear that energy could exist without conditions, because you can't create or destroy it. This is based on my primitive understanding of science, and is mere speculation when applied to anything other than observable reality. I don't have any firm beliefs about whether this rule would hold elsewhere.

But then again, maybe something is keeping the energy from disappearing? I couldn't possibly know. Things would look the same either way. So in conclusion, I have no firm beliefs at all, just an intuitive idea that energy will probably always exist in our reality...

I think the questions you voice here strike at the very point of the OP. So that me ask a conditional question for you to consider:

IF energy's existence was conditional on some other thing (X) "keeping it from disappearing", we could then immediately ask if some DIFFERENT thing (Y) is keeping that other thing (X) from disappearing, which are together (X+Y) keeping energy from disappearing. Then we can ask if some other thing (Z) is keeping Y from disappearing which (together) are keeping X from disappearing, which are all (X+Y+Z) keeping energy from disappearing. And so on. There is the context, here is the question:

Is it logically possible that there is an infinite chain of "other things" simultaneously keeping energy from disappearing?

In other words, I am not asking which thing you think is without conditions (it could be energy, it could be something else). I am asking if it is logically possible for ALL things to exist with conditions. If not, then at least one thing exists without conditions for existence. Otherwise, right now, an infinity of conditions are currently being satisfied for everything that exists. What do you think?

Well, there is an immediate problem of trying to apply logic as it appears to work within this reality to things not a part of this reality. I have no idea if our logic would make any sense regarding those things.

But assuming that it does...

Can there be infinitely many "things" in the first place? I have no idea. Again, I can only go by our reality. Who knows how it works outside.

I see no logical reason why there can't be infinitely many "things", although what exactly constitutes a "thing" is already getting pretty hazy.

So if there can be infinitely many things, then you could have the existence of all those things all be dependent on the existence of every other thing. So we've got a never ending list of things, and if a single one ever stops existing, then they all stop existing. So they are all dependent.

Of course, I'm just making all this up. As I said, it's all speculation. But that would appear to be a logically consistent situation where there is nothing that exists without depending on something else.

You wouldn't even need to go outside our reality. If our reality is made up of infinitely many elements, and the existence of every element is dependent on the continued existence of every other element, then there are no elements that exist regardless.

[GrandizerII]

Reality.

Great. How did you arrive at that?

It's almost self-evident, don't you think?

We're clearly not in a non-reality nor could we have come about from a literal "nothing".

[Ignorant]

It may well be a verb but existence is certainly not an act which a thing does.  No doing required.  Existence is being, not doing.  We don't do the be, we be the be.  So a verb, yes.  But an act?  No.

Is "to be" not an action? By act, I do not mean a conscious or willed or whatever sort of action. By the "act" of existence, I mean the most fundamental act any thing actually does: being. When we say, "that thing exists", it is identical with saying, "that thing is being that thing". I don't think we actually disagree here, so hopefully we can come to a common understanding.

When you say, "we be the be", the verb is "be". What is that verb describing if not an action?

One more thing. I don't agree that being "just an idea" makes their existence any less real. Ideas exist as ideas. Some map onto the world of objects it is true but the others still have their existence in the life of the mind even without that mapping. Case in point: love.

I agree with this, apologies if it came across differently.

Well how are you going to do that? How do you separate out correlation from causation on such a basic and general level?

Well, how about an example. 

Either helium exists on the condition that some other thing exists, or it does not. 

Are there any conditions for the existence of helium? Yes. Helium exists on the condition that at least two protons exist. There are more conditions than that, but that is at least one of the conditions. If only a single proton exists, then the existence of helium is impossible. If a single atom of helium is existing, and suddenly one of the protons ceases to exist, then that helium atom also ceases to exist. Helium exists conditionally.

Therefore, at least one thing exists on the condition that (an)other thing(s) is/are also existing.

On the face of it, it would seem that everything is contingent at some level. Do you have an exemplar of something whose existence is not contingent at all on anything in any conceivable manner? What makes you think such a thing exists? I question whether the category you've constructed may in fact be entirely empty.

I don't have an exemplar of a non-contingent thing. If it does exist, that thing(s) exists like nothing else in the universe/multiverse/whateververse exists, i.e. unconditionally.

If helium exists on the condition that at least two protons exist, the next question should regard the conditions for protons to exist. Whatever conditions those may be (if any), must also belong to the conditions for existence of helium. Here's why: if one of the conditions for a proton's existence fails, then so does the existence of the proton. If that proton is one of the conditions for a given helium atom, then the helium atom ceases to exist synchronously/concurrently with the failure of the proton's conditional failure as well as the proton's cessation of existence. 

If the proton has no conditions for its existence, then we have quickly discovered a necessary thing, a non-contingent thing, a thing which exists without the condition that another things also exists. Either way, we are stuck with a logical analysis. 

Is it logically possible for a thing to have an infinity of conditions for its immediate existence (that is different from an infinitely long chain of historical conditions leading to the existence of a thing, which I do think is logically possible)? I don't see how it is logically possible to have such an infinity of conditions for a such a thing to actually exist, but that doesn't mean I'm right...hence the thread.

[Ignorant]

Great. How did you arrive at that?

It's almost self-evident, don't you think?

We're clearly not in a non-reality nor could we have come about from a literal "nothing".

Well I don't know about its self-evidence, but most if not all things I encounter only exist on the condition that other things exist. How is it self-evident that reality exists without conditions?

[Whateverist]

It may well be a verb but existence is certainly not an act which a thing does.  No doing required.  Existence is being, not doing.  We don't do the be, we be the be.  So a verb, yes.  But an act?  No.

Is "to be" not an action? By act, I do not mean a conscious or willed or whatever sort of action. By the "act" of existence, I mean the most fundamental act any thing actually does: being. When we say, "that thing exists", it is identical with saying, "that thing is being that thing". I don't think we actually disagree here, so hopefully we can come to a common understanding.

When you say, "we be the be", the verb is "be". What is that verb describing if not an action?

It serves as much as an adjective as a verb. To say it is is to say it is existing. Notice that it is all word play at any rate. We're no closer to knowing something essential about the universe by examining the way we use our language.

Well how are you going to do that? How do you separate out correlation from causation on such a basic and general level?

Well, how about an example. 

Either helium exists on the condition that some other thing exists, or it does not. 

Are there any conditions for the existence of helium? Yes. Helium exists on the condition that at least two protons exist. There are more conditions than that, but that is at least one of the conditions. If only a single proton exists, then the existence of helium is impossible. If a single atom of helium is existing, and suddenly one of the protons ceases to exist, then that helium atom also ceases to exist. Helium exists conditionally.

Therefore, at least one thing exists on the condition that (an)other thing(s) is/are also existing.

But I'm not arguing that nothing is contingent, only that everything is contingent. The contingency isn't inherently hierarchal. Rather it is a function of the words and concepts we deploy to describe things. What we call Helium depends on a molecule's having two protons because of the definitions we employ. Hydrogen is no less contingent than Helium by virtue of having one few protons. We live in a state of mutual contingency.

On the face of it, it would seem that everything is contingent at some level. Do you have an exemplar of something whose existence is not contingent at all on anything in any conceivable manner? What makes you think such a thing exists? I question whether the category you've constructed may in fact be entirely empty.

I don't have an exemplar of a non-contingent thing. If it does exist, that thing(s) exists like nothing else in the universe/multiverse/whateververse exists, i.e. unconditionally.

If helium exists on the condition that at least two protons exist, the next question should regard the conditions for protons to exist. Whatever conditions those may be (if any), must also belong to the conditions for existence of helium. Here's why: if one of the conditions for a proton's existence fails, then so does the existence of the proton. If that proton is one of the conditions for a given helium atom, then the helium atom ceases to exist synchronously/concurrently with the failure of the proton's conditional failure as well as the proton's cessation of existence. 

If the proton has no conditions for its existence, then we have quickly discovered a necessary thing, a non-contingent thing, a thing which exists without the condition that another things also exists. Either way, we are stuck with a logical analysis. 

Is it logically possible for a thing to have an infinity of conditions for its immediate existence (that is different from an infinitely long chain of historical conditions leading to the existence of a thing, which I do think is logically possible)? I don't see how it is logically possible to have such an infinity of conditions for a such a thing to actually exist, but that doesn't mean I'm right...hence the thread.

Suppose we found something for which we could find no dependency upon anything else. Would that for sure be a non-contingent thing or would it just as likely be something we don't fully understand? Is there any reason to think that we as human beings have the capacity to understand everything? I doubt that our ability to describe it verbally or understand it is the final arbiter of the way things stand in the world. We are part of the world, not its judge.