Freelance Metaphysics

God: The True Story and the Story of Truth

THE DORMANIAN ARGUMENT FOR GOD (and/or PANPSYCHISM) -- the preface of REALITY: THE PREFACE by André Dormand (c) 2017

this brief preface, abstracted from a lengthier account, I demonstrate that dualities (i.e., opposites and specific negations of that which exists) exist everywhere in the universe -- same as does the physical (i.e., energy-matter), and that this observable foundation must have an abstract of itself, as well: God: the typically-defined creator of such a reliable order.

- In any physical universe, the smallest piece of matter would still consist of at least two physical properties: a front and behind, for instance (e.g., external/internal, potential/active, etc.) ... even if it's a dot (a point materialized). If not, then it must be dependent upon something else ... for instance, an area resting on a sheet of mass. But that would only invite another thing as its basis.
- That these characteristics balance out one another, the universe is presumed to be symmetrical.
- So, ontologically, all things have at least two properties (e.g., front/behind, internal/external).
- Yet even properties with dimensions are not mutually consistent, physically, if they couldn't mutually co-exist at the same time and in the same respect. For instance, a thing on the inside can't also be on the outside at the same time and in the same respect.
- Such is the case with physical oppositions in regards to their inaccessibility to one another at the same time and in the same respect.
- Those properties that aren't mutually possible physically possess at least one feature that's ontologically abstract.
- Abstracts are physically inaccessible but are knowable as they're the foundations of thought.
- Even an independent one-dimensional thing would be abstract, as conceiving it would be counter-intuitive to observe first-hand.
- Thus, though opposing pairings may be mutually dependent ontologically, they're mutually inconsistent physically.
- Paired opposing properties, then, are counter-intuitive ontologically and, thus, abstract.
- Yet intuition itself is based on the idea that for every thing that "is," there's an "is not" (e.g., if it's the front, then it's not the behind).
- Physically, although cosmologists claim that 'voids" physically exist, as in "is nots," they're not ontologically "voids" by definition. In physics, voids and/or vacuums are actually low-energy spaces -- a relativity.
- Therefore, an "is not"-in-itself wouldn't physically exist despite their necessity in relation to that which does physically exist.*

[[*FOOTNOTE: These abstractions must exist because there is knowledge, and the idea of opposition (as in "is/"is not") is a prerequisite of knowledge. Pure affirmative thought isn't known to exist, nor is there any pre-negative language. For anything to be recognized, one must first comprehend a thing by what it isn't (cf. the principle of identity).]]

- Thus, if such a definitive "is not" wouldn't be physical, then it must be abstract.*

[[FOOTNOTE: For instance, say there is no abstract of "is not" and everything physically is a preconceptualized "is-ness." Then, all matter would only consist of one whole ... like a blanket of matter over the universe. Yet even that blanket would undoubtedly have an in-some-ways inaccessible from-the-top, internal underbelly below -- i.e., a front and behind, which would then be two of some kind. But this is opposed to the law of non-contradiction: no physical thing can share two opposing physicalities at one space-time and in the same respect. EITHER everything would consist of itself yet in different space-times and different respects (e.g., an inside space-time/a beyond space-time) OR they'd be two things (thus, being and not being) occupying the same space-time and in the same respect (a physicality). However, both would involve a non-complementary inaccessibility of some or all of its associated oppositions (e.g., if you're on the outside of a surface, its underbelly may be inaccessible at the same time). Thus, these properties can only be purely abstract and transcendental (i.e., conceptual) so as not to be ontologically conflicting properties. In fact, these opposing characteristics could arguably be understood as two different respects. But the respects are physical, not abstract -- due to the inaccessibility issue. They're inseparable by nature, not by mind.]]

- Relativities are likewise abstract, yet demonstrated to always exist.
- ... as well as are all oppositions (including negation).
- So, "is not" must be abstract.
- Yet, relativities and oppositions conceptually depend upon negation such as "is nots."
- Thus, negation is the more foundational abstraction.
- Negation depends on determinate thought and determinate thought depends on negation.*

[[FOOTNOTE: This is because distinctions cannot be made without negating, yet negating cannot be made without making distinctions.]]

- So the abstraction of negation (i.e., the thought) must have preceded that which was abstracted (i.e., things thought of).*

[[FOOTNOTE: Such knowledge must have came about top-down rather than bottom-up. After all, if knowledge of negation developed instinctively, then it would have been derived by an organism lacking a need, not simply a want nor advantage (as these latter couldn't have been recognized prior to acknowledging the concept of things themselves). Yet for an organism to lack a basic need, it would be in a weakened state more likely to die off rather than advance to a higher level of creating a seemingly new form of energy: consciousness. Furthermore, when abstraction is explained by such causes as motility and perceptual learning, a sense of qualia is already presupposed -- as are organisms already able to make evaluations on some level. Yet these are the very aspects of “mind” that need to be explained in order to make sufficient a theory of consciousness]].

- Thus, abstraction is fundamental to the physical and the physical is fundamental to the abstract (as that which is abstracted from).

[[FOOTNOTE: Fundamental = a necessary attribute for a thing to be complete.]]

- Consequently as the universe is presumed to be naturally symmetrical, for every physicality, an abstraction likewise exists.*

[[FOOTNOTE: For instance, non-contradiction, supposedly the most basic of our logical laws, depends on such opposition. This is due to the linked nature of the terms of any given proposition to their contrary.
    For example, two opposing statements such as "it is big," and "it is not big" are conceivable. We can even imagine them both being true, albeit at different times and different respects. But if it was not for the linked nature of opposition, of say "big" and "small" -- as they are linked by definition, we wouldn't be able to comprehend neither of them. 'Bigness' would no longer imply a size extreme, but would imply potentially anything. Expanded universally, knowledge itself would be impossible without such unity. We would only have non sequiturs of which no knowledge can be gained. So even the idea of contradiction would prove unrecognizable as the idea itself is based on conflicting elements relating to propositions.]]

- Therefore, abstraction is as universal and undeniable as energy-matter.**

[[FOOTNOTE: For example, even energy-matter consists of a relative internal/external: potential energy and active kinetic energy. Likewise with mass being divided into fermions and bosons, and dark energy being called "repulsive gravity." So, even if the smallest piece of matter is an element ... a gas, then that gas would be a form of energy, most likely "potential" energy if we're speaking about the "first" element. But the term potential itself is an abstract term, and in reality: it must be contained ... otherwise, it's activated, not potential at all.]]

- Abstracts exist in thought as thought is the abstraction.*

[[FOOTNOTE: This would be the default position since our own thoughts appear abstract. If one doubted abstract thoughts, her very denial would be an abstraction ... and she would be contradicting herself.]]

- Thought is abstraction and abstraction is thought.
- Thoughts exist or, at least, occur in brains.
- Thus, abstractions exist or, at least, occur in brains.
- Furthermore, as stated, abstraction is universal.
- Universals prevail everywhere there is a here.
- "Here" is the universe and the universe is "here."
- Thus, such abstraction prevails throughout the universe without exception.
- So, as thoughts occur throughout the universe, the universe itself must be a brain.*

[[FOOTNOTE: The universe has functions comparable to our current understanding of a brain: it self-replicates (cf. Smolin’s cosmological theory), grows and develops (as in adapting, expanding as its components/properties are evolving), responds to stimuli (its very expansion is caused by interactions), and is homeostatic (as in regulating itself as demonstrated by symmetry and by the law-like stability of entropy to achieve equilibrium despite increased disorder).
    Also, even if you don’t accept the premise: "thought exists in brains", this would only imply that there must be thought beyond brains. It would follow that thoughts aren't strictly linked to our current understanding of brains. Thus, minds would more likely prevail throughout the universe regardless ... consistent with the claim being made here]].

- Conceptually, the most fundamental brain must have the capacity to fulfill all thoughts meaningful: the rational, the moral and the natural -- that is, according to the definition given above of 'fundamental'.*

[[FOOTNOTE: This is because the rational, moral and natural cover the three branches of philosophical inquiry in its purpose for establishing meaning: epistemology, ethics and ontology]].

- These three characteristics, in their most fundamental and realized form, would be all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful.*

[[FOOTNOTE: This is because the rational's purpose is knowledge, ethics' purpose is the good and the natural's purpose is to allow things to exist.]]

- In other words, these three characteristics, combined, would be the meaning of being itself (i.e., "is-ness").
- Such would be the opposite of opposition (i.e., the absolute) -- the [foundational] middle term between all other oppositions.
- Such an absolute entity could only be "God" by definition.*

[[FOOTNOTE: This is consistent with how Epicurus had defined God, c. 300 b.c., as all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful.]].


- If somebody says this argument is just a parlor-trick, or it's only conceptual at best ... just meta- physics, then that person is doubting one of the key foundations of natural science, which is symmetry -- a natural factor that scientists expect to find and explore in the universe to support their theories. Symmetry itself is _based_ on relativities. Thus, if this argument's claims are merely conceptual, then so would be science at its core.
- Such order can only be linked by logic (yet, another abstract) ... otherwise it would be purely coincidental and random. Yet such absolute symmetry would imply that a "random order" regarding it would be not only less than likely, but a contradiction-in-terms.
- But for such an innate order of opposition to exist, there must be an innate disorder too. Otherwise, all isn't symmetrical.
- Physically, this one case of asymmetry is demonstrated by the recently-observed Higgs Boson -- but that's just the disorder to the rest of the world's order. Higgs is how asymmetry _can_ be logically permitted.
- Yet even that must have an abstract equivalent in order to be part of the symmetrical universe(s). This is demonstrated by free will and imagination (cf. Conway's Free Will Theorem).
- These give us life.


- So, does this validation of God depend on there being a God? No, it depends on there being dualities, which are physically evident.
- The physical evidence for this is that duality is universally used as a starting reference point in the natural sciences (i.e., symmetry) as well as typically confirmed by the sciences. The exception to this is Higgs boson in cosmology, which is credited with change itself, creating the duality: change-constancy.
- If a skeptic rejects such a duality, then she has a burden of proof to demonstrate a monism existing anywhere in the universe.
- ... or: at least prove that the mental (the abstract) is the universe's equivalent to the physical regardless of a "God," which could then be accepted as a monism. Such a claim would be described as panpsychism -- a conclusion I would likewise accept based on the primary premises here.


Or, In More Deductive Form:

P01: Everything that is physically obtainable first-hand has opposed characteristics: those conceptually balanced to one another (e.g., symmetries: if there's an external, then there is an internal, etc.).*
P02: Having more than one characteristic is of a relative nature.
C01: Thus, everything that is physically obtainable first-hand has an equally relative nature.
P03: Relativity -- in its most basic sense -- implies both something "is" and something "is not."
C02: Thus, everything physically obtainable first-hand equally "is" and "is not."
P04: But while something "is" is physically obtainable first-hand, something "is not" is not physically obtainable first-hand.**
C03: Thus, everything physically obtainable first-hand equally "is not" physically obtainable first-hand: a dilemma.
C04/P05: The dilemma can only be solved if something equally exists other than that which is physically obtainable first-hand (as per P04 and C03).
P06: That which is not physically obtainable first-hand is abstract.***
C05: Thus, the abstract is equal to that which is physically obtainable first-hand.
C06: Furthermore, the "is not" is an abstract (as per P04 and P05-6).
P07: Abstracts are only knowable by thought.
C07: Thus, "is not" (negation) is only knowable by thought.
P08: Knowledge is dependent upon thought.
C08: Thus, the knowledge of negation is dependent on thought.
P09: But thought is likewise dependent on negation.
C09: Thus, knowledge of negation is also dependent on negation: a dilemma.
C10/P10: The dilemma can only be solved if there can be a thought not dependent upon anything that can be negated (as per P08 and P09).
P11: Likewise, such knowledge cannot be dependent upon the physical (as per C05).
P12: Meditation is specific thoughtless cognition neither dependent on the negative nor the physical.
P13: Meditation involves pure awareness (i.e., transcendence).
C11/P14: Such pure awareness follows since such knowledge of the "is" must equal that which physically exists first-hand ("is") (as per C04 and C10) -- the opposite to opposition.
P15: Furthermore, that which is not dependent on the physical nor the contrary of the physical (negation: the abstract) would not be relative in any way, but absolute.
P16: Absoluteness implies a completely sufficient wholeness.
P17: Absolute awareness of that which "is" would pertain to absolute truth.
C12/P18: Thus, absolute awareness would sufficiently cover all conceptions of truth equally and wholly: the rational, the pure and the natural (i.e., the epistemic, moral/aesthetic and ontological).
P19: That which is absolutely rational, pure and natural -- in their extremities -- is "all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful."
P20: That which is inherently all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful is "God" by definition.
C13: Thus, these dilemmas can be solved only if there is "God" (as per P10 and P11-20).
C14: Furthermore, "God" must equal that which absolutely exists (i.e., the universe[s]) (as per C04, C10 and C13).
C15: In conclusion, both "God" and the universe are one -- absolute thought: the middle term to all other opposition (as per C11).

*Symmetry is a starting assumption in science. In response to the counterargument that things that "are not" outnumber the things that "are" by infinities; intuitively, this may seem to be the case. After all, supposedly something "is" to the exclusion of everything else that "is not" that thing. However, that's generally speaking. Specifically, a thing can only be by its serving a given purpose or by not serving that purpose. That's the one-to-one correspondence in this regard. Yet, even here, the things not serving that purpose may be arguably more numerous than the thing that does. However, this, too, is conceptual, and laws of discernibility don't apply to concepts, just things. For instance, one can hold two conflicting thoughts or feelings at the same time and even in the same respect (e.g., love-hate). So, in actuality, any material reality that a thing consists of (i.e., prior to it being interpreted as one thing or another) can only "not be" by that material's just as perceivable absence. Thus, a given thing's direct contrary or absence is only physically relevant by its taking up one point in space-time as opposed to not taking up that space. The physical world, absent of minds, is simply structure and forces, or lack thereof. Physically speaking, then, for every "is" in space-time, there's only one potential "is not" for that space-time slice. So this counterargument, actually, presents no problem.
**You have to be aware of what a thing is or should be before you can become aware of its absence.
***This is consistent with Aristotle's idea that everything consists of form and matter (energy-mass). Form is abstract while matter is physical. We know the abstract exists, too, because our own abstract thoughts give form to the things that we know of ... and a person can't deny her abstract thoughts. Because her very denial would be abstract!

ADDITIONALLY: Absoluteness isn't something that can be demonstrated to exist by defintion. But it's simply the presumption that "reality is what it is." For one to think that which "is" and be 100% correspondently accurate: one must be all-rational, all-correct and all-able (i.e., contextually correct ways of saying: all-knowing, all- good and all-powerful to perceive in that way).
    Overall, something needs to know the truth for an idea of an "is not" to ever occur, and this would go as much for fundamental reality as it would for our individual minds (as per the second dilemma). So it's not so much as something "is" (i.e., truth) but being aware of itself (i.e., God).


Or, reduced to a few sentences:

P1: Negatives exist everywhere there is a positive. For example, for every "is" there is an opposing "is not," relatively speaking.
P2: Negatives, as perceivable, are conceptual -- that is to say, of the mind. No actual voids exist physically except in thought.*
P3: But negation couldn't have been caused by a thought because thought requires negation.** So there appears to be a dilemma between P2 and P3.
C1: This dilemma is solved by negation always having been known by a mind absolute in truth of that which "is." From this, all other minds could, then, conceive the existence of negation and conceptualize that which isn't.***
C2: Such would be the opposite to opposition itself: the absolute-in-itself  as opposed to the relative, of which there can only be one true absolute -- otherwise, that, too would be relative: God.

Overall assessment: God exists.

[*Any reference to “nothingness,” in physics, refers to low-energy spaces. But even energy-matter consists of relative aspects, such as potential energy and active kinetic energy. Likewise, mass may be divided into fermions and bosons, and dark energy has been called "repulsive gravity."
**Pure affirmative thought isn't knowable by us, nor is there any pre-negative language. For anything to be recognized, one must first comprehend a thing by what it isn't (cf. the principle of identity).
***Such knowledge would have came about top-down rather than bottom-up. After all, if knowledge of negation emerged from some extraordinary event, then it would have been derived by an organism lacking a need, not simply a want nor advantage (as mere wants wouldn't have been recognized prior to things themselves). Yet for an organism to lack a basic need, it would be in a weakened state more likely to die off rather than advance to a higher level of creating a seemingly new phenomenon of consciousness.
     Furthermore, when abstraction is linked to such initial causes as motility and perceptual learning, a sense of qualia is already presupposed as well as organisms already able to make evaluations on some level. Yet these are the very aspects of thought that need to be explained in order to make a sufficient theory of mind.
     Perhaps the idea of negation just came about because of our opening our eyes and closing them. But if that's the case, no extraordinary event ever occurred for thought to emerge from and awareness must have already been here. This is because only a mind could distinguish relationships such as ‘light-dark,’ ‘nourishment-hunger’(otherwise such associations wouldn’t be made, but would be perceived as two positive phenomena -- an “is” and an “is”). Thus, it would be critical for even the most basic uni- cellular life to have already possessed such a mind in order to survive, as can be observed with the sentience of bacteria, for instance.]

The Physical Proof:

The first distinction ever was the first negation ever. Distinctions cannot be made without negating, and negating cannot be made without making distinctions.*
This first thought (as thoughts are based on distinctions) must have been an epiphany, as nothing could have preceded it without requiring negation or distinctions.
Perhaps this first thought occurred in a manner commonplace (e.g., the blink of an eye). But if such was the case, such a thought presupposes the ability to form conceptual relationships (e.g., open-shut, light-dark). But this ability is dependent itself on making distinctions and negating (e.g., light-not light). So, this possibility fails for being circular.
Rather, then: the first occurrence must have been due to something great in scale.
But it couldn't have been from a great want or desire, as these two also presuppose conceptual relationships already having been determined. This is because wants and desires are for things specific.
So, the first thought could only have arisen from a great need. But great needs must be fulfilled necessarily, otherwise they're not needs. If a need isn't fulfilled, the needful thing perishes. So, this need must have been crucial to existence itself -- "existence" being the one thing that wouldn't have a physical opposite, as either things "are" or they "are not." So, either:
1) The need wasn't fulfilled and the thing perished (i.e., the most likely possibility for a thing weakened by an unfulfilled need).
2) The need was fulfilled by the organism by making the choice to survive, and opposing the natural course of perishing. However this, too, was a choice presupposing the awareness of conceptual relationships; in this case, life or death). Or:
3) The need was hard-wired in the organism to be fulfilled. But as this was the first thing to survive, nothing could have thrived long enough to reproduce prior to it for the hard-wiring to have evolved form. Thus, the hard-wiring must have been designed to perform that way by a preceding imperishable mind, as opposed to a thought.
So, either 1) the organism didn't survive, or 2) and 3): the organism survived due to a non-contingent mind preceding the need to survive. In other words, either 1) it didn't survive, or 2) it survived with thought, or 3) it survived without thought. 2) and 3) require a pre-existing mind.
Conclusion: Things have survived. Therefore, such a non-contingent mind existed to have made this first epiphany.
Any non-contingent mind is eternal, as it's complete-in-itself. Furthermore, there can only be one; otherwise, it's relative, and not complete-in-itself.
So, such an absolute, non-contingent mind still exists that would be God, by definition.

*If anyone believes this claim is wrong, then I ask: can you conceive the opposite of what you're claiming? If so, then you're presupposing the principle anyway by making a distinction.

And, finally:

1) For something to survive physically, a thing has to make distinctions.*
2) For a thing to make distinctions, a thing has to have the ability to negate (e.g., distinguish good from not-good).**
3) Negation is conceptual.***
4) Yet the first known forms of life, although they had the ability to make distinctions, had no brains nor central nervous systems.****
5) Thus, the ability to conceive need not come from brains nor nervous systems
6) Thus the physical must have a conceptual basis as the conceptual has a physical basis
7) Ultimately, these bases are one and the same (i.e., the ultimate concept [God] and the ultimate physicality [the Universe]).


In other words, if mentality is ingrained in nature, then it makes sense that the universe is a brain-like entity, of which its mind would be the original mind.


*Even trees are known to communicate with one another and recognize their offspring.
**Distinctions are essentially to say: this as opposed to that; this, not that.... An ability that is either known directly by the organism, or known by the entity that programmed or processed the hard-wiring of the organism.
***That is to say, it adds to the experience beyond the experience itself. Without thought, one can only experience things that exist outright. Such a thing wouldn't have the ability to actively choose to exclude that which is to be avoided.
****Bacteria, one of the first and simplest forms of life, respond to specific molecules -- swimming toward higher concentrations of attractants and away from higher concentrations of repellants.