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.