ANO

Argument for Naturalism from Oneness

Definitions:

Void: Absolute nothing, or nonexistence. Void does not have any properties what so ever. Void does not have any potentialities either. Void is not the same as space, or quantum vacuum, as they have properties, potentialities.

Exist: The very basic property of being. Things can exist as an entity or as a property of another entity. Exist is the opposite of not being, that is void.

Existence: Everything that exists, as oppose to nonexistence/void.  The set of all entities/things.

Physical:   Under physical I mean something which is generally accepted to be physical, like tables and chairs and the body of human beings. Physical things are entities which are subject to the scientific discipline of Physics. Examples of physical things are, but not limited to, things which are made from the elementary subatomic particles and the four known forces, (The Electromagnetic, the Weak and Strong nuclear forces and Gravity.)

The formal Argument :
1.) If void does not exist, then everything which exist is connected and therefore one single entity.
2.) Void does not exist. (axiom)
3.) Therefore: Everything that exists is fundamentally one single entity .
4.) From 3. Monism is true and dualism or pluralism does not obtain.
5.) From 4. and since part of Existence is physical, the whole Existence is physical.
Conclusion:  Everything that exists is physical.

The explanation:
1.) There cannot be no connection between entities, as there is no void to separate them. One could say, that you could separate entity A from entity B by inserting entity C in between them. But, that would mean, that entity A is connected to entity C and entity C is connected to entity B. So, entities A and B still would be connected through entity C.

We can still talk about tables and chairs, at the macro level. As we put limits in the whole Existence, to distinguish parts of it. Any limits, borders we put between entities are purely arbitrary. We can talk about tables and chairs, on macro level. But, when it comes to the subatomic level, we cannot distinguish where the table ends and the air around it begins. As both of them made up of the same subatomic particles. The same can be said for the chair. As we can see the table and the chair are connected through the air. This goes for everything else. Therefore, at the fundamental level of existence, everything is connected and therefore one single thing.

2.) This premise is an axiomatic statement. The word Void here denotes absolute emptiness. It is not quantum vacuum or space, as they have properties. Void does not have any properties. Void is the same as nonexistence, in the metaphysical sense. It is self evident that void, that is truly nonexistence, does not exists. It would be a contradiction, a nonsense, to say that nonexistence exist.

3.) Since void does not exists, everything is connected, united. Therefore, at the fundamental level of existence, every things are parts of One entity.
We may, and we do put arbitrary limits in this one entity, to make sense of Existence. But, at the fundamental level, there are no such limits.

4.) Monism is a metaphysical position that Existence at its basic level is made of one type of substance. In order for entities be connected, they have to have at least one property in common. Since Existence is one entity, all parts of it are connected. That is, all entities in it, at least, share one common property, at the very basic level. Therefore: Monism is true.

We can put this into a syllogism:
4.1.)  If all things have at least one common property, then Monism is true.
4.2.) All things have a common property (, because they are connected).
4.3.) Therefore, Monism is true.

As support of this argument. We can break down 4.2 to another syllogism:
4.2.1.)  If all things are connected, then they share at least one common property.
4.2.2.) All things are connected.
4.2.3.) Therefore, all things have a common property.

Monism is the direct opposition to Dualism and Pluralism. Therefore, if monism is true dualism and pluralism cannot obtain.

5.) It is self evident that physical entities exist. Since these entities are nothing but arbitrary defined parts of Existence , the whole Existence is Physical. If you know that the floor-covering in a room is made of the same type of material.  Even if you cannot see the whole floor. You can conclude, that the floor is made of wood. If you can see, that part of it is made of wood. The same way, as we classify part of Existence physical, therefore the whole Existence has to be physical.

Put this into a syllogism:
5.1.) If part of Existence is physical and Existence is one kind. Then, the whole Existence is physical.
5.2.) Part of the Existence is physical.
5.3.)  Therefore, the whole Existence is physical.

Conclusion: Since everything is physical, a non physical God cannot exist. So, even if God exist, it has to be physical. This leaves room for anthropomorphic gods, like the Sun, Moon and human beings declared as gods. But, not for a supernatural “real” God.

8 thoughts on “ANO

  1. The problem is this premise
    5.) From 4. and since part of Existence is physical, the whole Existence is physical.

    Since we are absolutely aware of our experiential or mental reality, someone could argue
    5.) From 4. and since part of Existence is mental / experiential, the whole Existence is mental / experiential.
    Then they could conclude with
    Conclusion: Everything that exists is mental / experiential.

    It is erroneous to assume just because you have argued for one substance, that this substance has only one way of being. I would urge you to read upon the formal / real distinction, and the separability criterion. Just because there is no separability in the substance into distinct substances, it could have multiple forms or ways of being, or attributes. Assuming there is a physical aspect to reality, there is also a mental / experiential aspect to reality as well. How does you metaphysics account for that mental / experiential aspect to reality?

    Like

    1. If you accept premise 4. that is (substance) monism is true. All you are doing is arguing what word its name should be. And yes, you could say that ” Everything that exists is mental” but this would mean that tables and chairs etc. are mental. You would have to argue that there is no physical realty at all, that is there are no physical tables and chairs. We just experience tables and chair as physical, but in reality they are mental. That is there are no actual tables and chairs, just experiences of table and chairs. That is an imaginary table is not distinguishable from a real table, since both are mental. Further more, there is no table we can both experience differently, but our experience of tables are different. So there cannot be common experiences, because there is nothing there to experience. As all we have is just our individual experiences.

      The rest of your comment is outside of the scope of this argument.

      Like

      1. There is a difference between the number of possible substances that exist versus the number of attributes or forms that this substance can have. Even if you have argued for only one substance, that no type of separation is possible, it still does not follow that this substance will only have one attribute. That is why I brought up the real vs formal distinction. The formal is “real” in the sense that the attributes, forms, or ways of being are distinct, but there is no separability, which is what distinguishes it from the real distinction. So, we have this experience of both a physical and mental / experiential aspect to reality or this one substance. That is the important issue, there is the experience of extended objects in the world that seem to be governed by regularities that we classify as physical laws, and there also is an experience of our rich inner world that has a phenomenological structure. This sharp distinction between these two is the reason for issues like the hard problem of consciousness. How does your metaphysics explain the distinction between these two aspects of what is physical and what is mental / experiential. Is this a rational, virtual, eminent, formal, or real distinction?

        Like

  2. I also have another question. Given that you argue against the concept of void or non-being to allow for the separation of substances, and all that you have is one substance, how do you account for change and alteration? If we had something like a void, and many individual substances that are separated because of this void, then the movement in this void would account for change and alteration. How do you explain this movement or change that our senses clearly perceive? Are you going to go down the route of Parmenides and claim that change and alteration are not real? I am not forcing this position on you, nor am I arguing against your position in this response, I would just like to know how your metaphysics will account for the experience of change, alteration, and plurality.

    Like

    1. This argument is not for or against the concept of void. In fact the statement about the void is an axiomatic statement, in this argument. If you did not know, let me inform you, that axioms are not argued for. I also like to remind you, that meaning of terms like void should be used as they are defined in the argument. So I bring your attention to Explanation 2. Where void is defined: “Void is the same as nonexistence, in the metaphysical sense. It is self evident that void, that is truly nonexistence, does not exists.” It would be a logical fallacy of equivocation to use the word void in any other sense.

      So your argument that: ” If we had something like a void, and many individual substances that are separated because of this void, then the movement *in this void* would account for change and alteration.” Using the word void as something which exists. That is you use the word void in a different sense as it defined in this argument.

      You do not need void in order to demonstrate that movement is possible. Water is not void, but fish can move in it. So movement is possible in a substance which is yielding. So you do not need empty space (void) for movement.

      Like

      1. Firstly, I was giving some sort of possible counterargument where the concept of a void is necessary to account for change and alteration. If change and alteration are real, which they seem to be, and the void is necessary for change and alteration, then the void exists. You really did not address my question. I asked you to give a metaphysical explanation of change and alteration, and using the example of water does not address the question, since the metaphysics of what water is would be in question. One could say that though we see some sort of fluidity, what is happening deep down are atoms in the void, and in this sense I mean the Greek sense of the term “atoms”. So, the water molecules are reduced to atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, which are reduced to quanta, and there is some separation amongst the quanta that allows for change. Just explain to me how your metaphysics accounts for change. I agree that a void is not necessary for change, I just would like to read your explanation.

        Also, as far as this comment
        “This argument is not for or against the concept of void. In fact the statement about the void is an axiomatic statement, in this argument. If you did not know, let me inform you, that axioms are not argued for.”
        What people accept as axiomatic will differ. Also, I am not sure that this void was seen as nonexistence to the ancient Atomists, I have also seen the word translated to vacuum, and that it was some sort of intangible substance rather than nonexistence. Please though answer my question on how your metaphysics accounts for change or alteration.

        Like

  3. Nyklot: “Also, I am not sure that this void was seen as nonexistence to the ancient Atomists, I have also seen the word translated to vacuum, and that it was some sort of intangible substance rather than nonexistence.”

    HairyH: Did you read my argument’s explanation “2.) This premise is an axiomatic statement. The word Void here denotes absolute emptiness. It is not quantum vacuum or space, as they have properties. Void does not have any properties. Void is the same as nonexistence, in the metaphysical sense. It is self evident that void, that is truly nonexistence, does not exists. It would be a contradiction, a nonsense, to say that nonexistence exist.”

    In THIS argument Void defined as above! To use the word void with any other meaning, when you addressing this argument, is a logical fallacy of equivocation!

    Nyklot : “What people accept as axiomatic will differ.”

    HairyH: Yes. You can reject this axiom. Do you reject it? If yes, we have no common-ground to argue on. And it would lead to contradiction of nonexistence exit.

    Nyklot: “You really did not address my question”

    HairyH: Yes I did!
    “You do not need void in order to demonstrate that movement is possible. Water is not void, but fish can move in it. So movement is possible in a substance which is yielding. So you do not need empty space (void) for movement.”

    Like

  4. Answer my question on how your metaphysics accounts for change or alteration. Giving the example of something swimming through water will not suffice, since the metaphysics of what water is in question. At most you have some kind of analogy, and an analogy does not provide an explanation unless you develop that analogy further. Let me show you how to do that.

    “I shall start with cosmological panpsychism under its physical aspect. From this point of view, physical reality as a whole, including both its material and its non-­‐material aspects, such as space and electromagnetic or gravitational energy, forms an unbounded, indivisible, substantival (though not in the first instance material) plenum. This plenum is construed geometrodynamically, as a dynamic extended substance – space – in a continuous process of expansion and internal self -­‐ differentiation. The model is the age -­‐ old one of water (shades of Thales here)(how nice it would be if the very first philosopher got it basically right!): the universe may be compared with a vast ocean coursed continually by currents and waves, some of which interfere to become vortices which hold their structure for long enough to give the appearance of independent or enduring existents. (W. K. Clifford articulated this “space theory of matter”, as a metaphysical template, long before Einstein and later John Archibald Wheeler gave it mathematical form as geometrodynamics. (Clifford 1876, 125 -­‐ 6)”

    Click to access PanpsychismParadigm.pdf

    What I mean by water is more developed by the idea of a geometrodynamic plenum that allows for internal processes of expansion and internal self-differentiation. That is what I was asking for, not just a vague allusion to water. That sounds like what Muslims do when they argue that the Koran has scientific knowledge by stating the world came from smoke.

    To be honest, this is the problem with you people who learn philosophy from Paltalk interactions rather than academia. You are more concerned with philosophy as some sort of video game, rather than actually getting to the truth, and establishing a cogent system, in this sense a metaphysics. I was not equivocating on the term void, since I did not challenge your use of the term. I was just telling you that for the ancient Atomists, it meant more of an intangible substance rather than a void. I would see the idea of a void as closer to the concept of the ether, rather than non-existence. Your metaphysics provided no explanation for the experience of different aspects of reality, in this sense a physical aspect and a experiential aspect, nor did it explain how change or alteration occurs. This should be your concern, instead of going to Paltalk, and being hostile and rude to anyone that challenges you with honest questions.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s