In a previous post, The Meaning of Existence, we nailed down the definition of the word “exist.” With a proper definition of existence, we can now begin to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. We defined “general existence” as the property of something being consistent with itself. This seems to automatically answer the question of why anything exists–Something exists because something is consistent. This answer is hardly satisfying, because the existence we have defined so far is purely abstract, while the concepts of something and nothing that come to our mind when we ask the question are not abstract, but physical in nature. Why does the physical universe exist?
A Complete Explanation
Any explanation for the universe must be a principle or set of principles from which the physical universe must follow logically. If we let O represent the statement, “the physical universe exists,” and E represent the explanation, then E satisfies
E ⇒ O.
We require a complete explanation, one that needs no further explanation and cannot possibly be false. The only way to ensure that statement E cannot possibly be false is to require that E be a tautology, as described in Foundations of Logic and Mathematics.
The explanation E must start with the definition of physical existence, which we call DPE, with logic L applied. If we require the explanation E to be tautological, then we must require the definition DPE to be tautological. The only way to make a definition tautological is to make it circular, so we can conclude that the only way to provide a complete explanation for physical existence is to start with a circular definition.
Definition
Let’s now define physical existence, starting with the definition of local existence defined in The Meaning of Existence. An entity exists locally in a set if it exists generally and satisfies the conditions of the set. If we replace “set” with the physical universe, then we can define physical existence in this way:
Physical Existence: An entity exists physically if it exists generally and satisfies the conditions of physical existence.
This definition is clearly correct, and clearly circular. It is equivalent to saying, “An entity exists physically if it exists physically.” The benefit of the circular definition is that it is undeniable, and thus provides a firm foundation for our explanation. We will now use logic to transform the definition into a more useful and enlightening form. Consider the following logical statement:
B ⇒ (A ⇐⇒ ¬(A ⇒ ¬B)).
By substituting “b exists” for B and “a exists” for A, the statement reads: “If b exists, then a exists if and only if the existence of a does not contradict the existence of b.” This can be rephrased as anything that is not disallowed by contradiction with existing entities must necessarily exist, or in other words, “Anything that is not forbidden is compulsory.” This is one formulation of the Totalitarian Principle from quantum field theory. It turns out that the totalitarian principle is not an assumption, but an objective truth. Using a truth table, as described in Foundations of Logic and Mathematics, it is straightforward to show that it is a tautology. By making use of the totalitarian principle, the definition of physical existence can be reformulated as follows:
Physical Existence: An entity exists physically if it exists generally and its physical existence does not contradict other physically existing entities.
Indeterminacy and Contingent Existence
The definition is still somewhat circular, although slightly more informative. Under this definition, the list of entities that could physically exist includes all things that are logically consistent with themselves. Consider just one of these possibilities and call it X. Either X exists physically or X does not exist physically. In theory we could use the definition of physical existence to test whether or not X exists physically, by checking to see that it does not contradict any other physically existing entities. But in order to perform the test we must already know what other entities exist physically. But we cannot know what other entities exist physically without first testing them as well.
Perhaps we could apply the tautology from a previous post, that two self-consistent entities do not contradict each other, and therefore X exists. This is true for general existence, but the condition of physical existence is a new property that may force some previously self-consistent entities to become inconsistent, so we cannot even know if a physical entity is self-consistent until we know whether or not it physically exists.
There is no rule, a priori, that can determine whether an entity X does or does not exist physically. If we now simply assume some rule, it will be completely arbitrary and will beg the question of why that rule exists in the first place. There appears to be no way forward. We cannot proceed to answer questions about physical existence without a clear non-circular definition of physical existence, and we cannot define physical existence in a non-circular way without making some unfounded assumption about it.
Suppose we apply the assumption that every entity must necessarily exist or not exist physically. In other words, we forbid indeterminacy. This forces a decision to be made for every possible X without any governing rule. This is pure randomness. Although this is an intriguing route to follow, it involves making an assumption, which is something we want to avoid.
Without allowing any assumptions to be made, the only logical conclusion is that the physical existence of X is indeterminate. It is absolutely impossible, given the definitions, to determine whether or not X exists physically. The reason for this is that our starting point, the definition of physical existence, is necessarily circular and indeterminate. Unfortunately there is no remedy for this without applying unfounded assumptions.
However, we are no longer stuck with no way forward. If we have an entity in an indeterminate state of existing and not existing, then we have something. An indeterminate physical universe has just arisen from the definitions. If we continue with this logic, considering all possible entities, then the physical universe is just an indeterminate sum of all self-consistent entities. We can say that these entities are in a state of “contingent existence,” which only resolves into definitive physical existence after screening out all contradictory possibilities.
Refinement
We have shown that the entire physical universe exists in a kind of indeterminate state, where every possible entity is testing itself against every other possible entity. If an entity arrives at a contradiction with another (in the flow of logic, not the flow of time), then the indeterminacy collapses to a more determinate state, because one or more possibilities are logically eliminated or reduced in probability. In this way, it can be said that all of existence is constantly going through a process of self-refinement or self-determination. The entities that tend to follow certain existence-preserving behaviors tend to survive, while other entities tend to be destroyed.
One might think that if that is the case, then it would result in a completely random and chaotic universe, for which we cannot derive any laws. However, this ignores the principle of natural selection, which is yet another tautology: “That which tends to survive and grow tends to survive and grow.” All of the contingently existing entities behave in ways that either lead to destruction or continued existence. The entities that tend to preserve themselves will preserve themselves, and those that do not, will not. Thus the universe refines itself, and the behaviors that tend to prolong existence become the laws of physics. It might be said then, that the laws of physics are nothing more than laws of morality for the most fundamental components of existence.
Time
Much of what we have said seems to be dependent upon the existence of time. What is time and why does it exist? Time can be described in a general manner as a chronological ordering for events. It turns out that a time-like ordering can arise simply from the application of refining logic. The totalitarian principle has brought all possible entities into contingent existence, but the definition of physical existence requires that every entity be tested against every other entity, constantly, until all things are in perfect agreement and determinate existence is achieved. The order in which these tests pass and fail is equivalent to a chronological order.
For example, suppose there are only 4 possible entities, A, B, C, and D, provided by the totalitarian principle. All four possibilities immediately obtain the status of contingent existence. Now suppose that, on the first application of the test of physical existence, A happens to contradict B so that they are not allowed to exist. The other 2 entities C and D maintain contingent existence, while the contradictory states eliminate each other. Now, given our universe of C+D, we must test every possible entity again, by attempting to add the four possibilities once more to our little universe. It might be the case that A and B can coexist as long as there are two C‘s present, or that might not be the case, depending on the structure of these entities. The flow of logic continues in this manner, again and again, like steps through time.
Randomness
Given the example above, what would happen if C contradicted D? In this scenario, every possible entity has an opposite, and the indeterminate sum adds up to nothing in the first step. That is a problem. Do all real possibilities have an opposite? If so, how can anything come into existence? If not, can we prove it? In mathematics, negative numbers are as logically sound as positive numbers, so if we can add 2 C‘s, we should just as easily be able to add -2 C‘s. It seems like opposites are universal, so how does existence get around it?
Recall the purely random entities that we considered earlier under the application of an assumption. There is nothing inconsistent about these random entities, and therefore they form a subset of all self-consistent entities that must be taken into account when we take the indeterminate sum of all possibilities. This randomness makes it possible for some entities to come into contingent existence while their opposites do not.
This is analogous to randomly choosing a set of integers between -100 and +100. If we choose all of them and add them together, the result will always be zero. However, if we randomly choose half of them, then the resulting sum will likely be small, but probably not zero. Random existence behaves similarly; if half of the possibilities randomly assume a state of contingent existence while the other half do not, then it is very likely that something will remain after the cancellations. Therefore, in the case where everything has an opposite, randomness makes creation possible and facilitates the flow of time.
Space
Time and indeterminacy in turn bring about the emergence of space. Every step through time involves the creation of new states of contingent existence that are modified versions of the previous states. This creates an expanding network of diverging timelines. At times, one or more of these timelines may turn out to be identical to another, at which point they can recombine into one possible timeline from that point forward, because they are logically equivalent. Thus the timelines can converge as well as diverge.
The universe is therefore an interconnected network of evolving timelines that can interact with each other and diverge from one another. When timelines are not interacting, what is it that separates them? Let’s consider two points lying on two distinct timelines. These two points represent two separate events, but the separation between these events is not a separation in time, since one cannot be said to precede the other. They are thus separated by what must be called “space.”
The continual testing of contingent existing states, coupled with the generation of time and space and the principle of natural selection, should eventually lead to a stable network of interacting particles in indeterminate states propagating through a causal spacetime. This stands in perfect agreement with the nature of the universe as described by modern physics.
Conclusion
We required a complete, unquestionable explanation of physical existence. We found it necessary to start with a circular definition of physical existence. The physical universe was shown to be necessarily indeterminate. The Totalitarian Principle, which was shown to be an absolute truth, makes everything possible, and provides the compatibility test that all physical entities must pass. The concept of contingent existence was introduced to describe possible entities which have yet to pass all the tests of compatibility.
Randomness is logically allowed to exist and was shown to be necessary for the flow of time and the creation of an interesting universe. The randomly interacting timelines that make up the universe are shown to be separated by space. The entities that form stable timelines become the matter in the universe, and the rules they follow become the laws of physics. All of these principles were explained from a purely logical foundation without assumptions.
Because we started at the very beginning, with the root cause of existence itself, there is no more reason to ask what caused the creation of the universe. Now we need only research what laws of physics follow from this foundation and what phenomena can be generated in this by these laws. There are many questions in physics that may be answered by the application of this theory.
Truth Reconciled 