Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)

The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.

If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter. — Illuminati

I'm just throwing some ideas out there, into the Aether, to see if any might stick :

#A. "pre-existing space" : Space-Time is not a real thing, but an imaginary geometric model that scientists use to understand Change. Since it is Ideal, scientists can extend the model timeline into the future or the past {image below}.

#B. "space itself is stretching" I assume this is a metaphor, as-if space is an elastic substance. Space is not a material substance that could stretch & warp, but the infinite Causal Potential that makes the local Matter Effect possible?

#C. "effect of phenomena" : As you put it : space is the conceived effect of sensable phenomena, such as Matter, relative to other Matter, or that is changing its size or location. But apparently, the Cause of the effect is undifferentiated Chaos that voluntarily begins to differentiate its infinite Potential into multiple space-time Actual Things. If so, then Chaos possesses Will-power*1 or Causal Power, Desire, Inclination, Choice???

#D. "space is not made of actual space" : Not a metaphor, but a mystery. So, what is formless empty nothingness made of : Aether*2? Traditionally Chaos = randomness or nothingness or void. As you said "not deterministic", so is Chaos pure Chance? Without the willpower to choose, anything that can happen will happen??? Is space made from the causal willpower we call Energy/Change? :smile:

*1. Will :
"Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself — the inner essence of everything — as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
Note --- Is "OIZ" similar to Schopenhauer's Will : more like a physical Force than a metaphysical G*D?

*2. Aether :
(or ether) can refer to the ancient Greek concept of the pure upper air breathed by gods, the personification of this sky deity, or a discredited scientific theory of a space-filling medium for light.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aether
In the 21st century, the "aether" concept reappears in physics, not as the 19th-century luminiferous medium, but as the Einstein ether, a framework exploring a space-filling medium compatible with Einstein's theories that could potentially explain dark matter/energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether
Note --- Not the Fifth Element, but the Only Substance (Aristotle/Spinoza)

SPACE-TIME BEFORE & AFTER BIG BANG

, is it worth my time to reply? There's a lot in your post, which I appreciate, but as a result there are multiple issues to discuss. Is there a point in my proceeding? Are you open to attempting to express your ideas in a more standard form? Let's look at just the first point.

1. An OG exists autonomously. This means without dependencies of any kind (causal or otherwise). If it had such a dependency it could not be the OG — Relativist

You introduce "autonomous" and "dependent". Perhaps we can get more clarity by sticking to truth functional operatives.
So you have here something like that nothing implies an OG; that nothing else has to be true in order for an OG to be true. That is, for any fact p, both p and ~p imply the OG.

This gives us (p v ~p)⊃OG. That is, regardless of what other states of affairs hold, OG will be true. Stated otherwise, OG is a necessary truth. So you do not need to show that OG is necessary, since you have assumed it. ☐OG. See the tree proof.

All that just for Point one.

Now look at point two.

2. For an object, X, to be ontologically contingent, there must be some C that accounts for X, but C could have accounted for ~X. Example: assume quantum collapse is not determinate, and C is a quantum collapse in which X emerged. X is contingent because C could have collapsed to Y. I express this as:
C accounts for (X or Y), or more generally: C accounts for (X or ~X). — Relativist

Here you have C⊃(X v ~X). Now (X v ~X) is a tautology, and so necessarily true. If the consequent of an implication is true, then the whole implication is true. That is, ☐( X v ~X), and so ☐(C⊃(X v ~X)).

So again you do not need to demonstrate that C⊃(X v ~X) is necessary. You have assumed it. But you cannot conclude that C is necessary. Nor that it is contingent. See the tree proof.

3. If an object is not contingent (as identified in #2) then it is necessary. — Relativist

Take care here. Contingency is not the same as possibility. An object that is not contingent may also be impossible.

4. Compare this to the outcome of a deterministic law of nature: the law: C causes X. Because it's deterministic, it means: C necessarily causes X. If C is contingent, then there X inherits this contingency (whatever accounts for the contingency of C, also accounts for the contingency of X). — Relativist

Here we run into the problem of what it is for A to cause B. IF it's just A⊃B, then all sorts of things we would not usually call causes will count as causes. So "cause " is not often understood as "implies".

We do not know if C is necessary or contingent or impossible.

So you cannot get to your point five.

5. An OG is not contingent because there is no C that accounts for the OC (that would entail a dependency - see#1). Therefore it exists necessarily. — Relativist

But that doesn't matter, since you assumed that OG is necessary at step one.

What this shows is that you haven't proved ☐OG, but assumed it.

Now, was that worth my time?

I have long assumed that many of our polarized disagreements on The Philosophy Forum are due to the "fact" that the common language of TPF, English, is essentially Materialistic (concrete & deterministic) and Metaphorical*1 (as-if), while the language of Science is supposed be factual : examining things as they really are (as-is) --- whatever that is. So, one party is talking about metaphysics (e.g. Mind) while the other is thinking about physics (Brain). Hence, some metaphysical (absolute) Materialists think they are making scientific (empirical) statements on a philosophical (theoretical*2) forum.

As far as I know, the only non-metaphorical language is Mathematics (abstract Logic). But when translated into colloquial forum posts, the logic of science becomes muddied with metaphors, which can be variously interpreted. The ambiguity of Quantum indeterminacy, may be why physicist Richard Feynman concluded, "It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", and is mis-quoted advising his students to "shut-up and calculate". Einstein was also skeptical of probabilistic Quantum math, because it "made no firm predictions".

I know very little about the "Linguistic Turn"*3 in philosophy, but I suppose it developed due to the modern polarization of philosophical investigation, that followed the Enlightenment Period, with its rejection of religious authority. Hence today, the meaning of each word is debatable. The same dualistic --- black vs white ; right vs wrong ; material vs mental --- division in philosophy is also apparent in modern Party Politics. That's why I sometimes say that a thread has been "politicized" instead of "philosophized". The presumption here is that Philosophy should seek unity of belief --- to get closer to Truth --- instead of arguing for doctrine A against dogma B.

Typically, the polar beliefs in this forum seem to boil down to Materialism (empirical facts) vs Idealism (general principles). So, many of the recurring threads, such as the nature of Consciousness, eventually devolve into name-calling doctrinal debates instead of sharing plausible opinions. In my opinion FWIW, a pragmatic worldview will treat the external world as-if it is purely Materialistic. But when we begin to talk about Ideas & Meanings & Principles & Values*5, we are faced with the necessity for Idealism, as a practical way to understand the features of reality that have no material properties.

On this forum, since our language is mostly Metaphorical*6, we need to keep in mind that our opinions & beliefs cannot be expressed empirically or factually. So our metaphors should be taken with a grain of salt, and healthy skepticism, and presented with a dose of humility. My personal worldview is based on some empirical scientific "facts", but the most important aspects (to me) are based on non-empirical speculation. So I can't be too cocky in my assertions.

Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language? :nerd:


*1. "Yes, language is materialistic in that it is a material system that is embedded in social and political economic structures."
"Yes, some linguistic theories suggest that all language is metaphorical. This is because words are not the thing itself, but rather a way to point to it."
___Google AI overview

*2. "A philosophical theory or philosophical position is a view that attempts to explain or account for a particular problem in philosophy. The use of the term "theory" is a statement of colloquial English and not a technical term." ___Wikipedia
Note --- Most of our forum assertions are Hypothetical, not formally Theoretical or Doctrinal, and neither True nor False, but expressions of provisional belief.

*3. "The term ‘the linguistic turn’ refers to a radical reconception of the nature of philosophy and its methods, according to which philosophy is neither an empirical science nor a supraempirical enquiry into the essential features of reality; instead, it is an a priori conceptual discipline which aims to elucidate the complex interrelationships among philosophically relevant concepts, as embodied in established linguistic usage, and by doing so dispel conceptual confusions and solve philosophical problems."
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/linguistic-turn/v-1
Note --- Can Philosophical Principles be classified as "supra-empirical"*4?

*4. "Superempirical" is an adjective that means something is experienced or is experiencing something beyond empirical means. It can also mean something is transcendental or transcendent." ___Google AI overview
Note --- Are philosophical Principles and scientific Laws, immanent facts or transcendent essences? Newton's First Law of Motion versus Aristotle's Prime Mover.

*5. Metaphors we live by :
" . . . a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980. The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings."
Quote ---"Ideas, concepts become substances that can be measured:"
Quote ---"Most of our indirect understanding involves understanding one kind of entity or experience in terms of another kind—that is, understanding via metaphor." ___Wikipedia

*6. "In Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state that human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. According to them, conceptual metaphor is a system of metaphor that lies behind much of everyday language and forms everyday conceptual system, including most abstract concepts."
http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/08/25.pdf

More Notes ---
#A. Human languages are based on metaphors --- figures of speech that represent the concrete material world in mental abstractions, and then express those ideas as-if they are the thing referred to.
#B. Spoken & written Words are symbols that represent my ideas in familiar terms that you can relate to. Some symbols represent physical Objects ; other symbols represent metaphysical Concepts. Concrete objects are easier to grasp. Abstract subjective feelings & understandings tend to be ambiguous.
#C. A metaphor is an attempt to express what something is "like" to me, but without making the comparison obvious. So the recipient may think I'm talking about the Object instead of the Subject.