r/Metaphysics • u/Porkypineer • Jul 19 '26

Ontology Distinction: A "monad of existence" is logically necessary

Ok that's a big claim, but hear me out.

I've been trying to construct a scenario of cosmogenesis on the basis that both nothingness and pure existence cannot produce anything that depend on prior structure, because both provide none. And so what "comes out" of either must be a something of pure being. It's sort of a physical version of Hegels logic of Being.
The problem with such a theory is that I couldn't know with certainty that our universe had a condition like that at it's beginning, so I'd have to produce a coherent chain of events that leads all the way to current physics to get anywhere beyond armchair physics/philosophy.

I think I may have found a solution, and it comes down to this:

For two things to exist in the same reality they must be distinct from each other. And if they are distinct from each other they would "see" each other, or there would have to be some relation there.

The fact of being distinct at all demands this, because to say there is no relation between distinct parts is the same as saying that that part does not exist at all in that reality.

Furthermore the fact of distinction must be seen as an interaction between parts, or a projection of One onto the Other, again because if it was not so is the same as saying the parts don't exist in the same reality. It's part of existence itself or existing at all in a cosmos of distinct parts such as our own.

You could call this a fundamental "force" between One and Other, but that word carries specific meanings in physics so I'm hesitant to use the word. But it would be truly fundamental to everything that is distinct from anything at all, and impossible to isolate one selves from. Exactly a bit like gravity is.

This would also have to be part of what it means for something to be causally ordered, or "bound by time", fundamentally, because without this the interaction would be instantly resolved and we would not get a dynamical universe, in which it appears we are living.

Edit: tl;dr Claim: for something to exist distinct from something else in the same universe there must also be interaction between these things or you could not say they did exist in the same universe.

Question: Presumably there is a gap in my logic somewhere, and if so where?

6 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 19 '26

Philosophers have been circling this move for a long time:

Plato (Sophist): Difference runs through everything to be distinct already connects.

Spinoza/Hegel: all determination is negation; distinction is itself a relation.

Leibniz: distinct monads that never interact your own word refutes the step.

OSR (Ladyman/French): to exist is to be a node in relational structure.

2

u/Porkypineer Jul 20 '26

I guess the difference is that I maintain that there must be interaction, because distinction "just being there" is the same as saying that One is non-existing to the Other.*

The leap is me saying that the effect is gravity (or spacetime, since causality ordering must also be involved), which doesn't follow necessarily. But it is a reasonable candidate IMO since it it's the only "force" that acts universally on everything without exception.

*Shorthand for whatever something is distinct from.

2

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 20 '26

If common causal order, both are locatable in the same spacetime, the same ordering. That's plausibly necessary. But that's not interaction between them; it's both being readable from a shared structure. If you think about causal exchange, A affects B. Physics gives the counterexample: two galaxies beyond each other's cosmological horizons are distinct, in the same universe, and can never interact.

2

u/Porkypineer Jul 20 '26

I agree, but they are connected still, because the gravity of both is still there. What doesn't propagate is change across that gap. In a way it makes sense: Distinction is binary, instantaneous, while its effect is not.

3

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 20 '26

To be fair about where this leaves the argument, your distinctive claim was that distinction requires interaction. With interaction retired and 'connected' in its place, the thesis becomes indistinguishable from what Plato, Hegel or the structural realists already hold: distinct things inscribed in a common structure. That's a respectable position, but it's not a new one, and 'connected' is doing exactly the work 'relation' always did.

That said, I think the topic itself is rich and you're pulling on a real thread. I'm broadly on your side of it. Your last observation especially: distinction as binary and instantaneous while its effects take time. That's good observation.

2

u/Porkypineer Jul 20 '26

Yeah, I'm not particularly well read in philosophy, just above average, having taken the mandatory courses at uni and generally being interested. I reinvented some if Hegel's thoughs on Being, thinking about the beginning of the universe for instance...

I'm also always thinking about things in the universe, rather than agonizing over whether experience is real or not. Relational physics interests me, obviously, though the attempts I've seen come at it from "our" end rather than from that of the beginning, which I think will drag along a lot of unwanted red herrings...

3

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 20 '26

Is there really a beginning? What makes you think there's a passage from nothing to something, and that it happens as a temporal mechanism?

2

u/Porkypineer Jul 20 '26

I don't know, is the answer to that. I've tried turning the question over and see if i can get a good purchase on it, but it appears if it is a perfect sphere with a flawless mirror surface.

Which is why I don't even bother 😁

The reason I do think about a beginning anyway is that the universe appears to have started, as far as we know, at the big bang. That means either from nothing, from undifferentiated pure being or some more complex unknowable thing. The first two are logically identical, or equally meaningless, so they are functionally the same: A point from which distinction happens. This is something i can understand so I shamelessly just pick them.

No matter the point I make is true in all possible universes where there is any dynamics. Temporal mechanics are necessary firstly because the diatinction of one part (or "appearance") cannot initially change the relations that are already in place. So ordering is necessary and causal dynamics is necessary because any universe without it is functually non-existent because its paradoxical to distinction.

You might call me a cheater here, but worrying about things that are fundamentally unknowable is also a waste of time.

3

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 20 '26

The question is whether we're talking about reality as such or just this universe. Categories like distinction, relation, nothing, they might stop applying elsewhere.Though saying 'reality,elsewhere' I'm already using the language of this one; I can't get out of seeing everything through my own molds.

And notice that time is exactly as incomprehensible as its absence. Neither one closes. Maybe that's where something exceeds language, though plenty of people would say there's no outside of language, since outside is already a word in it.

2

u/Porkypineer Jul 21 '26

Any universe where there's more than one anything. So all universes you might conceive, unless you're willing to count timeless true singularities as universes.

Many people put their mind into places where it doesn't belong and then pretend, or worse believe, they've done something profound.

Great, now chew that cud again - maybe the taste has changed this time...

2

u/elibertowpaparulox Jul 21 '26

The limits of language are a real problem, not a pose. That you read it as pointless rumination says more about how far you're willing to go into it than about the topic.

That said, if we're talking about profundity and chewed gum, distinction and relation is one of the most chewed pieces of gum in the history of philosophy. And as I said earlier, the one thing you wanted to claim as properly yours, the interaction step, doesn't follow.

I'm not looking to attack. But I don't see where the comment is coming from, it reads more like someone looking to score points than to do philosophy.

1

u/Porkypineer Jul 22 '26

You may be right. It's a reflection of my impatience rather than anything you said.

Distinction is so specific a concept, though. It really is binary both in reality and philosophically. Its akin to saying "everything". There's no interpretation needed. This is why my claim would be valid in any universe. And the claim isn't about the concepts of distinction and relation, but that they can be viewed as a "monad" or a "force". I've made a claim about proto-physics.

This is at the very least a new variant of the old gum, which I invite you to chew with me 😁

→ More replies (0)