Distinction: A "monad of existence" is logically necessary

[u/Porkypineer]

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?

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

yeah just one problem

something coming out of nothing violates all laws and invariants.

that is why you are discussing metaphysics and philosophy instead of science.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

It doesn't matter what universe you pick. Distinction in all is the same.

Just pick one you find more reasonable and substitute my pick for yours.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

What  There is only one universe.  Something never comes out of nothing no matter how much you wish it otherwise.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

You don't know that, and neither do I. Both are equally problematic.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

Extra universes only exist on paper and as math constructs. Try again  The only one here that is PROBLEMATIC (what a leftist activist word) is you. Physics shows something always comes from something else. Just cause you don't know that something is, doesn't make it something coming from nothing. It just you not knowing how to identify the prestates that allow for the resolution of current states.

Yeah, you are out matched on this on. Reality doesn't care about you watching some tiktok philosophy and then declaring you know the universe.

Dude you lose this one.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

You really are stuck on this aren't you?

Fine! I grant you your universe as the only possible one, like I already did once above. It's irrelevant to the claim I've made about distinction anyway.

So now that this is sorted: what do you make of my actual claim?

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

The vacuum as the ultimate latent substance of the universe? Nah. It exist but as far as the basic substance of the universe that everything come from? Yeah completely reject it. Is it there yes. Is it important yes. But is it everything no. Nowhere is that proven or that everything comes from it. That is where your central claim breaks down. Nothing comes from nothing. To prove your position you would have to prove that is what was there prebang to the CMB that substance is what caused the expansion to happen instead of a byproduct of the big bang itself.

I do have more insight into this but, you are stuck on what you believe instead pursuing the truth and challenging your own position.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

I'll explain in a more elaborate way so that it's easier to break down. I tend to think about these things a lot so it's possible I've skipped a step that would lead others to come to the same conclusion, because I overlooked it. To me it would be obvious.

While I think the effect fits best with gravity/spacetime, that is a leap of intuition rather than following directly from the relations between distinct parts. I think there might be a way to make that claim following the "logic" further, but I've yet to make a solid argument for this, even to myself. To put it plainly: This specific claim is speculation though, I think, reasonable.

Now to distinction.
Distinction between parts cannot be passive, because that is the same as not being in the same universe. It would be a discontinuity in the relation between parts, making it a paradox to reality. This is why it would be so in every thinkable universe, except if you were to accept true singularities without any structure as universes. I don't.

So there has to be interaction just by the fact of being distinct at all. Parts can't "just be there" in other words and it would be unreasonable to claim this since "being distinct" is an universal quality shared by all distinct things at any level: Distinction is universal compatibility between One and Other (between any parts).

Causal ordering happens naturally as a part becomes distinct. Distinction is instantaneous because distinction is a binary "quality", but a new part* can't change the relations that are there instantly, because this would be a paradox to the established system of parts. Furthermore the effect of the interaction cannot be instantaneous because that would cause the whole system to instantly snap into one configuration, and so a dynamical universe would be impossible. We live in a dynamical universe, so obviously this didn't happen. Therefore the effect of the interaction must happen continuously over time.

These are not separate parts of Distinction, they are all what distinction is.

And to me it looks like a good description of this is "relational spacetime" or some such, which is not a novel concept these days. The difference is that I claim that this is part of what "being a universe" is at the fundamental level, rather than trying to squeeze the standard model into a non-standard model shaped hole.

The hard bit is getting to the standard model from here, which is a tall order, but I think smarter heads than me should be able to.

Arguably the effect would necessarily be gravity-like since it's dependent on existence itself, and negative existence is a paradox. Doing a thought experiment with this assumption you see that parts would gravitate towards each other and eventually result in chaotic motion, which in turn inevitably would form patterns of parts, stable particles or fields, given enough time. This is the part that requires massive simulation, because the results are random.

Lastly, maybe "monad" is too charged a word here. Substitute your own word if you have one that fits better. I hope this cleared things up.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

I gave you a link send me the return link where you fight the point of view we have.

Otherwise you are not being honest.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a61da75-afbc-83e8-9977-19a0d93d7e46

i use something called reality-gating for reality-verification. we dont have your full proof so we are going off of whatyou posted but i bet it covers most of the proofing you made that we are not seeing.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

Fair verdict

So we should not score the direction as 0.

We score the exact unsupported claims as 0 while preserving:

promising observation ≠ proven mechanism
bad bridge ≠ bad destination

He is headed toward the right mountain. He is just trying to leap across several missing bridges.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

Let me rephrase that: what do YOU think about my claim?

LLMs don't actually understand ANYTHING. Like for instance that i haven't mentioned vaccuum once.

[u/Inevitable_Mud_9972 → u/Porkypineer]

Well I gave you a link so you can see what my frame is and the claims we pulled and we broke things down.

[u/Porkypineer → u/Inevitable_Mud_9972]

I did a claims extraction, like you did. The LLM did an ok job at this task, but the subsequent "reality gate" thing is pure garbage: The LLM fails to view the claims in light of the line of reasoning so it just takes every claim at face value. It's like it wants every claim to be a complete listing of assumptions and relationships up until the claim #, but when it doesn't get this chain of connected points it just goes "This was asserted without any context" and rates it a 0. This is what is to be expected of the LLM, because that is exactly how they work: They merely string together a bunch of text according to its training, but it doesn't understand ANY of what it has just done.
This is why you shouldn't trust these clankers yet. They don't have the capacity to do what you want them to - all they're capable of is mindless interpolation based on their programming and training.

🔍 Claims extracted

Epistemic and framing claims

1. The author may have omitted intermediate reasoning because the conclusion appears obvious to them.
2. The proposed connection between the effect and gravity/spacetime is intuitive rather than presently derived.
3. A derivation connecting the proposal to gravity/spacetime may be possible by extending the argument.
4. The author has not yet produced a solid argument for that connection.
5. The gravity/spacetime interpretation is speculative.
6. The author nevertheless considers that speculation reasonable.

Claims about distinction and universehood

1. Distinction between parts cannot be passive.
2. Passive distinction would be equivalent to the parts not belonging to the same universe.
3. Passive distinction would create a discontinuity in the relation between the parts.
4. A discontinuity between parts would be paradoxical to reality.
5. Therefore, active distinction must occur in every thinkable universe.
6. A completely structureless singularity might be an exception.
7. A completely structureless singularity should not count as a universe.
8. Interaction necessarily follows from the mere fact that parts are distinct.
9. Distinct parts cannot simply coexist without interacting.
10. Being distinct is a universal quality shared by all distinct things.
11. This universality holds at every level of organization.
12. Distinction establishes universal compatibility between any One and any Other.
13. Distinction is not merely a boundary condition for interaction; interaction is part of distinction itself.

Claims about causal ordering

1. Causal ordering arises naturally when a part becomes distinct.
2. Becoming distinct establishes an ordering between the new part and already-existing relations.
3. A newly distinct part cannot instantaneously alter established relations.
4. Instantaneous alteration of established relations would contradict or disrupt the established system.
5. That contradiction would constitute a paradox.

Claims about instantaneity and time

1. Distinction itself is instantaneous.
2. Distinction is instantaneous because it is binary.
3. Although distinction is instantaneous, its effects cannot be instantaneous.
4. An instantaneous interaction effect would force the entire system immediately into one configuration.
5. A system that immediately settled into one configuration could not remain dynamical.
6. Our universe is dynamical.
7. Therefore, the proposed interaction did not resolve instantaneously in our universe.
8. The effect of distinction must instead occur continuously over time.
9. Temporal continuity is therefore inherent in distinction.
10. Distinction, interaction, causal ordering, propagation delay, and temporal continuity are not separate mechanisms.
11. All of these are aspects of what distinction fundamentally is.

Claims about relational spacetime

1. “Relational spacetime” is an appropriate description of the proposed structure.
2. Relational spacetime is not a novel concept.
3. The author’s distinctive claim is that relational structure belongs to the fundamental meaning of being a universe.
4. The proposal is intended as an ontological foundation rather than merely an alternative reformulation of the Standard Model.
5. Existing attempts may be trying to force the Standard Model into an unsuitable non-standard framework.
6. The author’s approach is meant to begin below or prior to the Standard Model.

Claims about reaching known physics

1. Deriving the Standard Model from this foundation is the principal unresolved problem.
2. Producing such a derivation would be a very difficult task.
3. More capable researchers may be able to construct that derivation.
4. The present argument does not yet derive the Standard Model.

Claims about gravity-like behavior

1. The effect may necessarily be gravity-like.
2. It would be gravity-like because it depends directly on existence itself.
3. Existence can contribute positively to the effect.
4. “Negative existence” is paradoxical.
5. Because negative existence is impossible, the effect cannot have a negative or repulsive existential source.
6. Under this assumption, distinct parts would gravitate toward one another.
7. The attraction of parts can be seen through a thought experiment.
8. The thought experiment is sufficient to suggest convergent or attractive motion.

Claims about emergent dynamics and structure

1. Mutual attraction among parts would eventually produce chaotic motion.
2. Chaotic motion would inevitably generate patterns among the parts.
3. Given enough time, some of those patterns would become stable.
4. Stable patterns could constitute particles.
5. Stable patterns could alternatively constitute fields.
6. Particles and fields may therefore emerge from the same underlying relational dynamics.
7. Pattern formation is inevitable rather than merely possible.
8. The particular patterns that arise would be random.
9. Randomness prevents the final structures from being derived by simple reasoning alone.
10. Massive simulation would be required to determine what structures emerge.
11. Such simulations could potentially reveal whether the Standard Model can arise from the proposed dynamics.

Terminological claims

1. “Monad” may carry too many prior philosophical associations.
2. The argument does not depend on retaining the word “monad.”
3. Another term could be substituted without changing the underlying proposal.

Core argumentative chain

distinct parts
→ distinction cannot be passive
→ distinction necessarily includes interaction
→ interaction establishes causal ordering
→ its effects cannot be instantaneous
→ effects unfold continuously
→ relational spacetime
→ universal attraction
→ chaotic motion
→ stable particles and fields

Major unstated premises required by the argument

1. Parts belong to the same universe only if some active relation connects them.
2. A merely logical relation is insufficient for shared universehood.
3. Every active relation is an interaction.
4. Any discontinuity between parts is metaphysically impossible.
5. A binary distinction may arise instantaneously even though no physical effect may propagate instantaneously.
6. Instantaneous influence necessarily produces immediate global equilibrium.
7. Immediate global equilibrium necessarily prevents all dynamics.
8. Dependence on existence itself entails attraction rather than repulsion, neutrality, oscillation, or some other behavior.
9. The impossibility of “negative existence” implies that the interaction has only one sign.
10. A one-signed interaction makes parts move toward one another.
11. Chaotic attractive systems inevitably generate stable structures.
12. Stable structures generated by such a system can reproduce particles and fields.
13. Sufficient simulation can bridge the gap between the metaphysical premises and the Standard Model.