KEY METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS
Contents:
Necessary context: Essentials of Metaphysics
LEXICAL NOTES:
1.
Action refers to the change in a particular entity.
2.
A cause of an action refers to an aspect of an entity that shapes the action.
NOTE: By causality, what an entity does is an extension of what it is.
Change can exist neither apart from nor in contradiction to entities that exist, which means any change, such as the existence of something that did not exist before, can exist neither apart from nor in contradiction to things that exist. Hence, anything non-eternal that comes into existence necessarily has a cause, i.e. it comes into existence only by the actions of entities that exist.
Now, for the sake of argument, let us say that something, call it X, is the only cause of something else, call it Y. Hence, the existence of Y is an extension of the identity of X, i.e. it cannot exist apart from nor in contradiction to X. In other words, everything that Y is was derived from X. If some part of Y, let us call it Y’, was not derived from X, then Y’ is not an extension of the identity of X and thus was not caused by X; given that X is the only cause of Y, it must be that Y’ was uncaused, which contradicts the law of causality. Evidently, then, something cannot come from nothing, which means that the indivisible building blocks of reality are either eternal or a transformation of another indivisible building block of reality.
NOTE: There can be no capacity to create something from nothing, since for X to create something from nothing is for X to cause something whose identity is detached in some way from the identity of X; this violates the law of causality and thus the law of identity. Hence, such a capacity cannot be said to be a part of the identity of anything, not even a god (if such an entity were to exist at all). Needless to say, the laws of reality do not allow for reality-defying capacities.
A change is always a change of entities that exist, which means the result of the change is always an extension of the identities of the entities that exist. Now, note that something is not nothing, and thus, the extension of something cannot be nothing. Thus, change always maintains the existence of the building blocks of reality and never destroys them.
Multiplicity is inherent in existence. If existence were merely one indivisible thing, then by its nature, no other things could or would arise from it, since something cannot come from nothing. Hence, the fact that there is more than one thing in existence implies that multiplicity is inherent in existence. As a side note, to say that a god was responsible for the existence of multiplicity is self-contradictory; if the god were to exist in an existence without multiplicity, then god would necessarily have to be the one indivisible thing in existence from which nothing else can arise. Needless to say, such a god cannot create anything. Even the assertion that “everything is god” implies that god is an entity composed of many things, which still presupposes multiplicity, since without multiplicity, there is only one indivisible whole. Even to say “multiplicity is an illusion” is a self-contradiction, because now, we have two things: the indivisible whole and the illusion about the indivisible whole. After all, an illusion is something; if it were nothing, it would not be an illusion and there would be nothing to say about it.
NOTE: Obviously, existence is one whole, but it is not an indivisible whole.
Interactivity is also inherent in the fact of existence. If it were not, then the existence of any entity neither would nor could have any effect on the existence of any other. In other words, nothing complex or causally efficacious could exist. In such a case, existence would be eternally inert and could never be otherwise. Hence, the observation of interactivity implies that interactivity is inherent in existence. As a side note, to say that a god was responsible for the existence of interactivity is self-contradictory; if a causally efficacious entity such as god were to exist, then its own existence presupposes interactivity. Even to say “interactivity is an illusion” is a self-contradiction, because the very fact of awareness presupposes interactivity between consciousness and some part of reality outside consciousness.
First, a definition…
Actuality:
The current, i.e. concrete state of existence.
Potentiality:
A state of existence being concretised by cause-and-effect. The state of existence being concretised may or may not already exist, but in either case, potentiality refers not to concretised facts of reality but to the result of the cause-and-effect. Hence, even if the state of existence being concretised already exists, potentiality still refers to the future state of existence, which is not yet concretised since it is going to be but is not yet the same as the present. A potential refers to the potentiality of a particular part of reality.
Process:
A series of actions or events in a given part of reality toward a certain potential, i.e. toward a certain state of the given part of reality that may or may not currently exist. For example, travelling is a series of actions and events toward a certain destination; even if you do not reach the destination, you can still have travelled toward it.
Back to the discussion…
When applied to a process, the concept of infinity refers to the lack of an ending, i.e. it refers to the case wherein the ending of a process has no identity. When applied to an entity, however, the concept of infinity refers to the lack of a measurable attribute in some respect. Measurement is ultimately based on the identification of the difference between two similar things; in essence, measurement is the extension of such identification. For example, we measure the length of an object by identifying the difference between the observed length and a fixed length (our unit of measurement); the two similar things here are the two observations of the same attribute, i.e. length.
Hence, if an attribute is actually, i.e. concretely infinite, then it cannot be measured in the given instance. In such a case, the difference between the given instance of the attribute and another instance of the attribute cannot be identified, not just practically but metaphysically, i.e. by the very nature of the given instance in reality. Hence, we get either that the given instance of the attribute has no identity, or that there is no other instance of the attribute, which is impossible since an attribute can only be identified through a relationship between its instances. Hence, we get either that the given instance of the attribute has no identity, which means it does not exist, or that the attribute does not exist for the thing in question. Evidently, then, infinite attributes cannot exist.
SIDE NOTE: Anything that exists has at least one attribute: the fact of its existence. It either is, or it is not. However, the concept of infinity does not apply to the fact of existence, since the measure of this attribute is purely either-or and thus always measurable; what is, is, and what is not, is not, which means either the thing is, or the thing is not, there is no other possible measure.
However, if the ending of a process has no identity, it only means that the process is sustained at any given point in time. The law of identity is not violated here, which means an infinite process can indeed exist. Note that an infinite process is a process whose potential is infinite, i.e. whose pursuit toward reaching or sustaining a state of existence is neverending. Hence, infinity can only refer to potentiality, but never actuality. Hence, nothing is actually, i.e. concretely infinite, only potentially infinite; note that potential refers to something that is not concretised yet.
NOTE: Mathematical infinity is different from something being actually, i.e. concretely infinite, since mathematical infinity is a form of representing potentiality. For example, the set of all natural numbers being infinite is a statement of the fact that there is no “final” number we can reach, i.e. that we can count potentially forever. As another example, the limit of a sum as the number of terms approaches infinity represents the lowest value that the sum can never exceed, which means it represents a limit to the potential rise in the sum.
Actuality can never be infinite, which means no chain of cause-and-effect is infinite, since any such chain is a series of actions and interactions between concretes, which means any such chain is also concrete. Hence, no actual state of existence goes back infinitely to prior states of existence. Hence, existence does not extend infinitely into the past. Furthermore, since actuality can never be infinite, the actual state of existence is also finite, i.e. its every actual attribute has an identity, which means it is also finite in size.
Is it then valid to ask when existence began? To answer, let us understand time. Time is, in essence, the measure of change. Now, note that change presupposes the existence of entities, which means time presupposes existence. In other words, existence is eternal in the sense that there was no time before existence, since existence just is. Similarly, is it valid to ask where existence stops? Obviously not, since to identify where existence stops is to identify where there is nothing. But there cannot “be” nothing anywhere, hence the “boundaries” of existence do not exist.