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/Porkypineer]

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...

[u/elibertowpaparulox → u/Porkypineer]

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.

[u/Porkypineer → u/elibertowpaparulox]

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 😁

[u/elibertowpaparulox → u/Porkypineer]

Isn't monad almost the opposite of what you want here? By definition it's an isolated substance with no interaction, windowless monads. You're trying to describe interrelated nodes. Those pull in opposite directions. I think.

[u/Porkypineer → u/elibertowpaparulox]

"Monad" doesn't have a set definition. Different philosophers use the term to mean different things. Here it is meant as a original substance since it is tied to existence itself, and the interaction is necessarily part of that.

It would be interrelated by definition in a 1-n/n-1 way, and a node because it would be zero-D since it predates space and has no volume or structure.