In this brief preface, abstracted from a lengthier account, I demonstrate that dualities 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 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 ... like an area resting on a sheet of mass perhaps? But that would only invite another thing.
- If a thing didn't have dimensions, then it would be abstract.
- Abstracts are intangible 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.
- So either things are dimensional or they're not (physical or abstract) or they have at least two properties (front/behind, internal/external).
- In other words, they either have dimensions or properties.
- Implied by these premises, then, is that every thing that "is" then has an "is not." (e.g., if it's the front, then it's not the behind).
- But in physical reality, cosmologists claim that 'voids" don't physically exist, as in "is nots" (cf. in physics, voids and/or vacuums are actually low-energy spaces -- a relativity).
- Therefore, an "is not"-in-itself wouldn't physically exist.
- Thus, if such a definitive "is not" wouldn't be physical, then it must be abstract.
- 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.
- So the abstraction of negation (i.e., the thought) must have preceded that which was abstracted (i.e., things thought of).*
[[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).
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, internal underbelly -- 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. So these properties can only be purely abstract and transcendental 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. So either the thing itself is of two natures despite occupying the same space-time (if respects are treated physically) or of one nature (the same respect) but of two different physicalities (inside/outside). Either one is a physical contradiction. Therefore, we must rather regard these things or space-times as abstract properties of one greater thing or space-time, albeit their relative nature is physically distinct.
Furthermore, 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 or advantage (as these latter 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 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]].
- Essentially, for every physicality, an abstraction likewise exists.
- Therefore, abstraction is as universal and undeniable as energy-matter.**
[[FOOTNOTE: 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 active.]]
- 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 everywhere there is a here.*
[[FOOTNOTE: For instance, non-contradiction, 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 either 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. Even the idea of contradiction would prove unrecognizable as the idea itself is based on conflicting elements relating to propositions.]]
- "Here" is the universe and the universe is "here."
- Thus, such abstraction prevails throughout the universe without exception.
- So, 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 under- standing 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.
- These three characteristics, in their most fundamental and realized form, would be all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful.
- In other words, they would be the meaning of being itself (i.e., "is-ness").
- Such would be the opposite of opposition: "God" -- the middle term between all other oppositions.*
[[FOOTNOTE: as per 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 science, which is symmetry -- a natural factor that scientists expect to find in the universe and explore 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.
- Only from such a mind could there be such a universal order of opposition and symmetry as observed in the universe (i.e., reciprocity). It's observed to be a fact that all of reality is based on phenomena and counter-phenomena or, even if one considers reality at its most basic: a phenomenon with at least two properties.
- Such order can only be linked by logic (yet, another abstract) ... otherwise it would be purely physical, 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 most of the premises here.
P01: Everything that is physically observable first-hand has opposed characteristics, those equal to one another (e.g., symmetries: if there's an external, then there's an internal, etc.).
P02: Having more than one characteristic is a relative nature.
C01: Thus, everything that is physically observable 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 observable first-hand equally "is" and "is not."
P04: But while something "is" is physically observable first-hand, something "is not" is not physically observable first-hand.
C03: Thus, everything physically observable first-hand equally "is not" physically observable first-hand: a dilemma.
C04/P05: The dilemma can only be solved if something equally exists other than that which is physically observable first-hand (as per P04 and C03).
P06: That which is not physically observable first-hand is abstract.
C05: Thus, the abstract is equal to that which is physically observable 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 a specific thought process neither dependent on the negative nor the physical.
P13: Meditation is pure awareness (i.e., transcendence): abstraction itself.
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 uniquely 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, pure and natural (i.e., the epistemic, aesthetic/ethics and ontological).
P19: That which is absolutely rational, pure and natural 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 only be solved 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).
[*FOOTNOTE:Absoluteness isn't something that can be demonstrated to exist by defintion. But it must exist, otherwise we wouldn't have developed the property to think (as negation must follow from it, relatively speaking).
Absolute truth = "It 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 (just 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).]