A question in a similar format would be why many things instead of just one, two, three or a handful? why are things that exist different from each other? — Daniel

Ah, a good clue, in what you said, plus adding to it: why the humongous amount of material in the universe, namely 2x10**76 particles or so (the '2' is for matter and antimatter)? Originally, there were 2x10**85 particles, but since there are a billion photons for every proton we had to take away 10**9 due to the annihilations of matter and antimatter in the early universe. Now all the material is far apart and so the annihilations are much less.

We have to conclude that material stuff was very easy to come by, this allowing for a lot of combinations leading to many differences.

At first there was mostly hydrogen, like 99%, before the rest of the atomic elements became to reduce the hydrogen result a few percent lower, but initially the other atomic elements were but traces of the simplest ones of lithium, helium, and, I forget, beryllium, maybe, until stars formed from protons by gravity, which produced perhaps 15 more of the atomic elements, but no more, for lack of the energy needed, until supernovae and/or colliding neutron stars produced the rest of the atomic elements.

I am just wondering to what extent can we rely on physics? — Jack Cummins

Well, in the case of QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and the Standard Model derived from it, we rely on its physics all the time, in all our myriad electron devices and more.

So, Philosophy works best when its derivations can get confirmed by/with science; otherwise, as we see in some of the forums, people say a lot of things that sound good on the surface, such as having 'free will', 'infinity', and 'Nothing' that quickly evaporates when delving into the definitions.

Science always questions, never stopping wondering, which is a lot better than having a philosophy that leaves all the questions out at the onset.

Seek out the clues… winnow the possible answers more… wishing and hoping doesn't do very much.

Why are all electrons exactly the same?

Why does just one electron or photon go through both slits in the experiment?

How come the complexity of humans becomes greater as we head toward the future, yet was simpler and simpler back into the past? Why would people claim the Greatest Complexity possible as First and Fundamental?

Why both matter and antimatter? Why the polarity of charge?

Why only two main particles (proton and electron) being stable in free space , with opposite charge (neutrons decay with in 12 minutes)? Why only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, with neutral charge.

Anyone have more clues that can beget more real progress?

knowing absolutes — Jack Cummins

One begins with the true knowing of what proposed absolutes have fallen by the wayside:

Newton's proposed space and time as absolutes were given the boot by Einstein, so, they are but emergent, and not fundamental, so, the ultimate foundation can't have them.

Classical particles as spigots producing fields turned out to be mute and so they cannot be so as the fundamental loot. In addition, composites cannot be First, for their parts would have to be more fundamental than they, so composite particles, like atoms, are out, and thus are but secondary.

Quantum fields do fit the bill, for they are continuous and thus but only made of themselves, as non composite. Note that 'Nothing' cannot exist, nor even be meant, and so there can't be any spacers of 'nothing' in the fields, Einstein having already noted this continuity in "All is field".

What is left as a a candidate?

Quantum fields can be modeled as harmonic oscilators, which necessarily implies quanta of energy, such as in that an electron in an atom can only be at or only jump to certain quantum energy levels, so, the model is thus correct.

Before one asks how an Absolute can be made from no parts, note that Absolutes are ever, as eternal, and so they are neither breakable nor makable, having no beginning and no end.

One still wonders how they can just be there forever and never made, but, again, Something has to be, since there is undeniably something and and there could not have been 'Nothing'; thus Existence has no alternative. That we already have this necessity as truth obviates its Why; yet there can be no true paradoxes.

An electron, then, is an excitation ripple in the quantum electron field, kind of like a kink in a rope, as are the other so-called elementary particles.

These quantum fields in no time or space would have to be all atop one another, being not in a coordinate system. We have background independence! Their excitations didn't so much 'get quantized, but are the energy quanta.

Anything but the Absolute Permanent is thus temporary. We further note that not anything in particular remains but in an instant changes, adding to the notion that the Absolute is energetic; yet, the Absolute can never change, but the temporaries ever do.

Since their can be no design point for an absolute, since it has no beginning and thus no 'before' or 'outside', we might deduce that it could itself be not anything in particular, and thus an Everything, either in a linear way, as in presentism, or all-at-once, as in eternalism, both of which time modes would appear to be the same to us. We don't know the mode of time.

OK, so much for Absolutes, and how they would be, but can they be at all?

If not, there is Relationism, with no absolutes at all, the relations being all. Quantum entanglement suggest that everything is connected everything.

Wrap up:

'God', too, is out, as an Absolute, for a system of mind cannot be non composite.

'Nothing' ever tries to creep back in as a source, but note, say, if you want something from 'it' like that it divides into positives and negatives, there had to be a capability for this 'unstableness' and so because this is a something you didn't have a 'Nothing' in the first place as claimed.

Indeed, there appears to be an zero balance in the Cosmos, with the negative potential energy of gravity seeming to cancel out the positive kinetic energy of stuff… but for perhaps some quantum wavering as necessity prohibiting the definite quantum state of zero.

So, either way, as an Absolute or as Relationism, we we lean toward Everything being, yet soon learn another lesson, which is that the information content of Everything such as a Library of Babel containing very possible book, would be the same as that of 'Nothing': zero.

So, we have two TOEs in hand, and thus we are indeed very close to knowing.

I think that often the choice of words such as energy, spirit and God are preferred ways to referring to the ultimate underlying reality. — Jack Cummins

You are referring to a Fundamental Absolute.

Either there is an Absolute, such as quantum fields (see QFT), or there is Relationism, with no intrinsic properties or absolutes (see RQM), so, indeed, we are very close to knowing.

Consciousness — Gnomon

What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.

Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—

As the distinctions toward survival, 
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or’s the brain’s private symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of 
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious parts know not what’s being made.

…

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He.

Except for the unfortunate fact that Rovelli still maintains physicalism. — Wayfarer

His apparent 'physical' is woven from images in mirrors reflected by mirrors, is how I take his thinking, with no underlying material substance. We can still investigate phenomena.

Carlo Rovelli — Wayfarer

Nagarjuna (aka 'The Second Buddha) Ideas Confirmed by Quantum Theory Relationalism:

In his new book, 'Helgoland…', about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only 'properties' in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by 'emptiness'.

Everything is 'quantum entangled' with everything, the 'things' more properly described as interactions and events.

Further, there are no fundamental substances, absolutes, no outside of Everything or bird's-eye view, no eternal basis, no 'God', etc. that is, there is no foundation of any kind to what goes on. 'Impermanance' goes all the way through…

This realization of 'Impermanence', 'No Absolutes' and 'Emptiness' is 'Nirvana'.

The quest is ended.

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? — Georgios Bakalis

That doesn't matter, for 'God' cannot exist. What is Fundamental cannot have parts. Not even something very simply composite can be First as the Absolute.

what do you know — Thinking

The Answers to Everything

On What ‘IS’

(Particles as the energy excitations of quantum fields)

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or as all at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps make ‘particles’, then more.

The temp-forms last from unit charge or strength;
The Basis is coterminal with them,
But is not cosubstantial with the ‘things’;
The information content is the same as Null!

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields went mute;
Classic fields had no fundamental loot.

… proposed …

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games—
No use entertaining real replacements.


On Consciousness

What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.

Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—

As the distinctions toward survival, 
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or’s the brain’s private symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of 
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious parts know not what’s being made.

…

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He.

oh well, it was a world while it lasted. — Enrique

When You and I behind the cloak are past
But the long while the next universe shall last,
Which of one’s approach and departure it grasps
As might the sea’s self heed a pebble cast.

Or a stone skipped across a pond…

Your mission if you choose to accept it: explain skipping a stone to me as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields. — Enrique

Particles can be long-lasting as excitations due to their unit strength/charge as energy quanta…and from there we know the rest of the story.

I would say that light isn't either a particle or a wave — Enrique

'Particles', as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields, go through both slits because, well, as hinted, they are field quanta at heart.

What is a whole, a One, without a boundary? — NOS4A2

This appears to be a problem, for the impossible 'Nothing' cannot be outside the One, making the One having to be of 'Infinite' extent, which is another problem, perhaps, since 'Infinite' is never complete and accomplished, leaving an impossible One, with all then being relative, if that's the right word.

our multiplex world — Gnomon

Speaking of complexity's progression, Julian Barbour as it that complexity is literally time, rather than of its opposite of disorder continuing on.

How it is that the higher minds of higher human beings will likely come about in the future if there is already a Highest Mind at the beginning?

an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity — Gnomon

In physics, the well proposed multiplicity from unity is thought to be of covariant quantum fields' excitations acting as particles that, although secondary and temporary, can last last quite a while due to their quantum unit charge or quantum unit strength, and are thus then able to form more complexities, on up to minds. Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. Each level seems to 'code' for the next one, from particles to a few atomic elements to stars to higher atomic elements to molecules to cells, to life, to consciousness.

Gnomon likey! — Gnomon

I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf

whether the material world is the most absolute form of reality — Jack Cummins

I'm late here. The material world is not "absolute" in the sense of it being fundamental or permanent but it is as if it were to us since we are of it and in it as temporary and emergent events from the Absolute, many of which events are long lasting.

In physics, many of the earlier proposed absolutes have fallen, such as space, time, classical fields, and particles. All that's left so far are the proposed quantum fields of QFT that work fairly well for the standard model.

An electron, though secondary to its primary electron quantum field, holds together because it has the quantum unit of negative charge. It gets called 'elementary' since perhaps it is non-composite, I guess.

A proton, as a very long event, maybe lasting 10**35 years, is composite. Not anything composite can be the absolute base fundamental.

Yet, what 'realness' should we grant to our human reality, given that it becomes from the Absolute or is actually the Absolute at heart? Should we regard that the temporary transmutations of the Absolute are not the permanent Absolute itself? If so, then the Absolute is somehow coterminal with the goings on in our reality bust somehow not consubstantial with it. If not, we are the Absolute directly and change is intrinsic to the Absolute, which idea perhaps does not compute.

We see that everything changes continually at our level, as quick or slow events, although semblances continue, restrained by time from all happening and going away in a flash, leaving there to be not anything particular lasting here.

Coincidently, or relatedly, since the Absolute cannot have a beginning, it can't then be anything particular, as there is no point in time before it or outside it for any direction or design to be given.

Yet, we suppose covariant quantum fields, all atop one another, as they can work, given quantized energy (nothing else is quantized). The best we can say is that their base existence has no opposite, such as that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant, and so they have to be so, with no alternative.

Or they are forced, again because 'Nothing' cannot be. Yet, 'Nothing', or at least 'zero', seems to be the sum of our reality in that the negative potential energy of gravity exactly balances/cancels the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon

This is still a Mind as being First, aka 'God'.

How can a wave propagate without some physical medium to compress & release? — Gnomon

All is field. The excitations are what we call 'particles'. From them, the, born of simplicity, the complex universe.

For any finite volume over any finite time interval, there is always a probability of field excitations. But even without those excitations, the field itself -- the potential for particles to emerge -- exists. 'Nothing' would suggest to me no such fields, not just no local excitations. It seems nonsensical to me to claim there are quantum mechanical arguments for this. — Kenosha Kid

The covariant quantum fields of Quantum Field Theory are what I favor as fundamental, for not only does the standard model work, as based on them, but also because they are non composite, made of only themselves. One cannot have a fundamental entity that is composite, for its parts would have to be even more fundamental.

So, then, much much less could a System of Mind wished for in a God Person be fundamental.

'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

From what I understand from him these fluctuations are random. From his point of view they could not be anything else because that would require, as you say, an unbroken Cause of Causation. — Brett

Philosophically, they would be random, since there is no point before or outside of what is Eternal for input/design.

Scientifically, Anton Zeilinger claims to have shown that randomness is the bedrock of reality, to several sigma.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause — Gnomon

the most general cause in the physical world is Energy. — Gnomon

a union of opposites — Thinking

Yes, there's perhaps a deep union behind the balance of opposites, some even as a zero sum.

1. The negative potential energy of gravity matches/cancels the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

2. Two matter particles in free space, oppositely charged (another balance), the electron and the proton, and their antiparticles (another balance). Note that neutrons in free space decay in about 12 minutes. One energy particle, the photon, which is its own antiparticle or one could say it has none. Only those number of ways to make them in this curious symmetry, due to…?

3. The net electric charge of the universe appears to be zero.

More?

A God would be a being that has the power and knowledge to create a specific universe. — Philosophim

'God' as a fun topic even beats out poor old Trump; a mere mortal can hardly compete with the Mysterious Fun-With-Da-Mental ways of the curiously invisible proposed Almighty.

Seriously, 'God', as the Fundamental Entity (as often dishonestly claimed to be truth), intentionaly thinks, plans, designs, and implements all that goes on, either utilizing just Himself, as the All, or by forming outside stuff and incorporating it within His All Encompassing Domain.

Surely, then this proposed 'God' Being is a system of mind; but, this Personhood isn't at all in favor of His being fundamental, for, as with any system, the parts would have to be even more fundamental. His probability falls, for what we do see happening is that beings such as ourselves evolved and if we are to evolve higher then this will happen in the future, which thus becomes the right direction to look in, not the past.

We see, indeed, that the deep and deeper past was of the simpler and simpler, unto continuous and partless covariant quantum fields whose quantized excitations are what we call 'particles'.

The Theory of 'God' is not a good one because it assumes a lot and shows nothing, for the 'Supernatural' that is supposed to be everywhere is ever AWOL. Good theories, like evolution, show a lot and assume practically nothing, such as the Standard Model / Quantum Fields which has plenty to show.

More to the point and more seriously… next time, through philosophy, science, and logic… this is just an intro. I have read all the posts.

Actually as far as solipsism goes that is pretty much it. I think therefor I am. That's all, there is a reason it's called a dead end. — Darkneos

If Mind/Consciousness is the only Reality, R, as the Whole/Unity, then its message in our faux reality, r, as its essence/multiplicity/fragmentation is still that of ‘substance’ operating perfectly according to laws as if it were truly substance here.

While there would be no live band playing the Music of the Spheres due to the implementation/messenger of a kind of a recording/transmutation of R into r, via R, the result can be utilized the same, a difference that would seem to make no difference, albeit simulating r would seem to be a lot more complicated than if true substance in r did all the work itself.

It’s such that if I use an mp3 player the music is still the message, regardless of that messenger.

I think that's close. Interesting that it's a discovery of mathematical physics, isn't it? — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's incredibly close, for beyond its mathematical origin the precise predictions have been realized in experiments, and so the standard model came forth.

In this poem of analysis, we see how the other candidates gradually fell away:

— The Answers to Everything —

On What ‘IS’

(Particles as excitations of fields)

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
The Basis is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null!

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields went mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

Proposed …

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

Quantum fields, perhaps.

Only the intellectually dishonest state that 'God' or 'No God' is truth. Or, in Biblical, name-calling type language, only the fool says there is 'God' or 'no God'.

find common ground — Benj96

In general, whatever side assumes a lot is more suspect to not being fact. Strong theories assume very little, such as Evolution and thus show a lot of evidence. Attempted Disproofs can only be based on self-contradiction. Being agnostic seems quite reasonable. Getting off the Agnostic fence, as one must usually do in practice, in such as going or not to Church, can be based on probability.

The common ground would be that the All can be shown to have to be eternal.

To refute 'All is Mind', one needs to show that there is substance, which I'd say includes forces/energy acting as substance, plus that Mind cannot make substance, plus that there can't be a kind of a movie going on through Mind in which everything operates exactly as if there were substance and its laws, and that if there is this perfect movie going on that a difference in the message between the faux and the true substance is not a difference that makes no difference.

A needle in a haystack — Michael McMahon

Back to your OP on that all is mind. The conceptualized mysteries ever baffle, not being able to be found in any haystack; they are led to, if your all-mind proposal is so, by Consciousness's fragmentation of the Whole that can be seen straight out by Awareness (the objectless kind). So, the smaller reality, r, would be the multiplicity formed by consciousness making distinctions, while the larger, real Reality would be the Unity.

To show mind to be all you might want to show that there is no real substance, 'Something', but still note that there cannot be 'Nothing', leaving mind as all.

For example, point 'particles' claimed by Physicists have no size/dimension, so then they cannot be substance. Look for more such cases.

we'd have to say that it really wasn't random — Metaphysician Undercover

Some research somewhere I can't remember suggest that the wave function collapse isn't instant or random, it becoming only after a gradual build-up.

'Random', though has a tough time of going away, although I'd like it to. Anton Zellinger claims to have proven that "randomness is the bedrock of reality" to many sigma, through experiments.

"Natural Selection" — Gnomon

In the regular uncapitalized natural selection, it is the 'selection' that is the scientific alternate to ID, meaning, too, that evolution doesn't work by chance, which is the same as you said about chance not being able to drive it.

I didn’t have the chance hearing of a religion (or religious doctrine) that doesn’t have rules to be obeyed by believers/its followers. — KerimF

If 'God' given free will is truly free, and unconditionally meant, as what we take 'free' to be, then any other attempts of the religion to have rules would be contradictory and wouldn't apply; however, I might add that a Person cannot be fundamental, for any system has to have parts—which would have to be more fundamental.

I came to the conclusion that "all is mind" by inference from the modern scientific theory that "all is Information". Einstein determined by theoretical reasoning that Matter is a form of Energy. Then Shannon determined mathematically that Information content can be measured by its degree of Entropy (negative energy). Which means that "Information" is equivalent to positive Energy. Therefore Information = Energy = Matter. Ironically though, the term "Information", prior to the 20th century referred only to the contents of minds, i.e. knowledge & concepts. Hence : Information = Mind. — Gnomon

Good on the equivalence, but more correct to substitute 'mass' for 'matter'. In e=mcc, 'm' is 'mass' and the equation is indeed showing equivalence, not that mass makes energy or vice-versa.

Time doesnt ezist — Gregory

It does appear that eternalism is so, given that 'what is' is all there is; however, there is no doubt that we experience time, which makes it to be emergent, as the poem's facts denies us any other kind of absoluteness.

can't generate itself — smartguy

That's really the point, that not anything can generate itself, so, we are left with 'what ever is' as a truth and a proof that 'something' has no alternative, no opposite. I can add, though, that a curious zero-sum balance of opposites is found, too, and so is appealing—why is this so is an interesting question, too.

I sometimes consider poetry to be a form of philosophy. — Gregory

Poetry unveils unapprehended hidden truths often in a logical precise, concise way that helps one maintain a focus on the question or answer, or something like that, but, as always, the content is the pearl.

we reach a point in which there are no rules of prior necessitation, only the unyielding result of the existence that is there. — Philosophim

Good conclusion, for there is no alternative to 'what is', such as a lack of anything, and it's doubly shown since there is not only something but also that any supposed 'it' of 'Nothingness' has no productive means (or it would be something and not 'Nothing.)

We can then go on to say that 'what is' is eternal in the sense that it cannot have a beginning or an end, making it to be unbreakable and unmakeable, deathless and ungenerated, etc.

Thus, we can then know that it must be here all at once, partless, continuous, and all the same, plus always only itself, which still goes if there are several such fundamental 'its'.

So, then, we look about us at what's suggested, finding what fully qualifies is:

On What ‘IS’

(Particles as excitations of fields)

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
The Basis is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null!

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields are mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

Further

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

no "choice" in the matter — Lida Rose

Good post, Lisa.

or – if always existed – how and mostly why is there something rather than nothing. — philosophience wordpress com

The 'something' is not optional, for there is something, plus 'nothing' cannot even be meant.

What is objective is what is common to all; if its degrees can vary across individuals then that aspect of it is subjective.