Necessary Thing

[Ignorant]

Let me save you some trouble before you try to apply this to godism.  Aquinas failed utterly to prove that God in necessary, or that the universe is contingent upon the existence of God.  Aquinas' failure lies in the fact that his 'proofs' for God are nothing of the sort (ontology is, and always has been, little more than clever word play).  Until you can demonstrate (not simply argue) that God exists in the everyday meaning of the word, trying to further demonstrate that God is necessary and that everything else is contingent upon God is really just so much smoke and mirrors.

Boru

And let me save you the heartache of suffering to hear a "god proof". I have no interest in "applying this to godism". You might be interested to know that I am a Thomist, AND I agree that none of the 5 ways proves that god is necessary or that the universe is contingent upon the existence of God. Why would any sane person try to "demonstrate" god's existence in a systematic philosophical proof when the people he is offering the demonstration hold radically different philosophical positions? Wouldn't it be better to explore those differences first? Now I'm rambling...

If quanta that did not exist previously *pop* into existence and then *pop* out again, they can be considered both necessary and contingent.  If it had not had an existence (however brief - 'necessity' doesn't require or imply durability), it would not be necessary.

That may be the case, but the word "necessity" is a word given to equivocation, and I think you are using it differently than me. The way in which you have used "necessary" is coherent and sound, but I don't think it ultimately answers my question (most likely my fault for lack of clarity). Let me explain:

I think when you say "necessary", you are meaning it in the deterministic sense. Consider these 4 hypothetical states of the universe:

1) Particle x exists 
2) Particle x exists and particle y begins to exist
3) Particle x ceases to exist and Particle y exists
4) Particle y exists

Now consider the following sequence of those states: 1 => 2 => 3 => 4.    According to your description, both particle x and y are contingent. I agree. They are contingent because  the existence particle x or particle y is NOT a condition for the existence of at least one state of the universe. For example, the existence of Particle x is a condition for at least states 1 and 2. It is not a condition for state 4. It's non-existence is a real possibility (as is shown by its non-existence in 4). Therefore, it is contingent.

However, you assert that it is also necessary. I think you mean, "it could not have occurred any other way". In other words, given what we know about the universe and its physical laws AND from any actual state of things the universe, the immediately following state of things could not NOT be that state of things. Back to the sequence. For you, given state 1, and observing state 2, state 2 must be the case. Because it occurred, because it happened... it happened necessarily. It could not have happened or occurred any other way. If we observe 1 => 2 => 3 => 4, then there is no other way the sequence could have occurred. The universe exists that way, necessarily.

That is fine if you hold that, but it is answering a different question than the one I posed in the OP. My question is, is there some thing "Z" which has no conditions for its existence, and is a condition for everything else that exists:

Conditions for particle x existing) Z and particle x
Conditions for particle y existing) Z and particle x and particle y
Conditions for Z) Z

However, to exist (in any meaningful sense of the word), the quanta must have something in which to exist.  We call that something 'spacetime'.  So quanta are contingent upon there being a spacetime matrix in which to exist.

Which on our hypothetical universe translates to:

Conditions for particle x existing) Spacetime and particle x
Conditions for particle y existing) Spacetime and state 1 and particle y
Conditions for spacetime existing) spacetime

Now, you probably don't think spacetime's existence is unconditioned, but I only write that to illustrate the question. Whether you think it is space time or not, does anything exist which has no conditions for existence besides itself? <= That would be necessary existence.