(April 21, 2016 at 8:17 am)robvalue Wrote: ...You're suggesting that if the existence of A depends on the existence of B, it's "more fundamental". I don't see this as being meaningful. All that is happening is that if B no longer exists, for whatever reason, then A will no longer exist either. And the same the other way round. There doesn't have to be an ordering for this to be the case...
Here we clearly misunderstand each other. If A depends on B, A's ability to exist comes from B's existence. If B no longer exists, A will no longer exist because B provided A's existence. That is exactly what contingent/conditional upon means. B's existence is the reason A can exist at all. IF two things have a synchronous, YET Conditionally DISCONNECTED existence, then they aren't mutually contingent. If they just "happen" to exist in parallel, then they aren't actually conditions of each other.