Logic, Language, and Nothing: A Minimal Philosophy of Existence

[Tillirix]

Why does anything exist? This question has puzzled philosophers for centuries, and has implications for our understanding of reality, knowledge, and meaning. Thinking about a minimal explanation of why anything exists, we cannot seem to get around assuming "logic". The reasoning is that if we start by assuming “nothing”, which seems reasonable, then logic implies that “everything” follows.

This is due to the "Principle of Explosion" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). We also say that "nothing" is equivalent to "zero" or "false". Now, if everything is possible, it seems reasonable that any and every universe or world can and indeed does exist. The world we experience is, in this sense, explained by just assuming logic and not anything else. The other possibility is that the assumption of “nothing” is invalid, in which case a minimal explanation of our world must start with “something”. However, assuming something additional goes against the goal to develop a minimal explanation of why anything exists. Either way, we seem to require logic.

If logic is essential for explaining existence, then we need to ask what logic is and how we can access it. A related question is whether logic requires a language, without which we cannot express logic. Interestingly, in this abstract approach to minimally explaining the world, it appears true that "in the beginning was the word" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1). Setting religion aside for this argument, a minimal philosophical framework that explains why anything exists would then require language.

Based on the principle of explosion, the necessity of language, and the avoidance of any unnecessary additional assumptions, we can conclude that a minimal philosophy of the world requires three parts: Logic, Language, and Nothing.

[Age]

Why does anything exist?

1. Because 'it' cannot be any other way.

2. To bear witness to what 'I' am Creating.

This question has puzzled philosophers for centuries, and has implications for our understanding of reality, knowledge, and meaning. Thinking about a minimal explanation of why anything exists, we cannot seem to get around assuming "logic". The reasoning is that if we start by assuming “nothing”, which seems reasonable, then logic implies that “everything” follows.

I suggest never starting with an assumption. But rather only with what you actually know, for sure, only.

This is due to the "Principle of Explosion" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). We also say that "nothing" is equivalent to "zero" or "false". Now, if everything is possible, it seems reasonable that any and every universe or world can and indeed does exist.

See, how when you start with an assumption, like you did here, how quickly you can end up led completely astray? Again, exactly like you did here.

The world we experience is, in this sense, explained by just assuming logic and not anything else. The other possibility is that the assumption of “nothing” is invalid, in which case a minimal explanation of our world must start with “something”. However, assuming something additional goes against the goal to develop a minimal explanation of why anything exists. Either way, we seem to require logic.

Again, if you start with only what is irrefutably True, and not with any assumption at all, you will not end up and becoming 'stuck', exactly like you are here.

If logic is essential for explaining existence, then we need to ask what logic is and how we can access it.

If you had not began with some assumption like 'logic is essential', then you would not be worrying nor asking what you did here.

As thus could have actually kept moving forward, instead of being 'stuck', again.

A related question is whether logic requires a language, without which we cannot express logic. Interestingly, in this abstract approach to minimally explaining the world, it appears true that "in the beginning was the word" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1). Setting religion aside for this argument, a minimal philosophical framework that explains why anything exists would then require language.

Based on the principle of explosion, the necessity of language, and the avoidance of any unnecessary additional assumptions, we can conclude that a minimal philosophy of the world requires three parts: Logic, Language, and Nothing.

Okay. But the initial question, in the beginning, here could have been, and actually has already been, answered, before you went off on other tangents, because of assumptions, and before you got 'stuck' anywhere, like you obviously did and are here.

[Walker]

Why does anything exist? This question has puzzled philosophers for centuries, and has implications for our understanding of reality, knowledge, and meaning. Thinking about a minimal explanation of why anything exists, we cannot seem to get around assuming "logic". The reasoning is that if we start by assuming “nothing”, which seems reasonable, then logic implies that “everything” follows.

Studying the dynamic of not being able to answer centuries-old puzzles may not yield the answer to those puzzles.

So, why does anything exist?

Premise: If something exists it has a purpose. Therefore it follows from this observation of something:

- The purpose may be known, or unknown.
- Even in the most modern and technologically sophisticated societies, if that something is alive then its life is invariably entangled with one food chain or another, and the purpose of food chains is continuity.
- Therefore the purpose of life is the continuity of life.
- That's accomplished by being entangled in a food chain.
- Continuity of life is achieved by feeding life.
- For humans feeding life can be a complex dynamic, what with one thing leading to another, but all the causes and effects generated by any living thing trace back to that commonality of purpose.

Conclusion: Anything exists to fulfill a purpose. Living things exist for the purpose of links in a food chain ... which is yet another reason why it can be said that we only exist in relationship. If you have no relationship with a person, place, thing or thought, the lights may be on but nobody's home ... the one who was there could be formally meditating. This implies that existence is a function of cognizance, which implies that every living thing is aware of its own life but not necessarily by cognizance, if only by instinct, or by body knowledge that doesn't require cognizance.

The most primal relationship is to eat, and to be eaten. In society this translates into winning, or losing. Thus the primal attraction of football, sometimes primally celebrated with rioting.

[Impenitent]

Why does anything exist? This question has puzzled philosophers for centuries, and has implications for our understanding of reality, knowledge, and meaning. Thinking about a minimal explanation of why anything exists, we cannot seem to get around assuming "logic". The reasoning is that if we start by assuming “nothing”, which seems reasonable, then logic implies that “everything” follows.

Studying the dynamic of not being able to answer centuries-old puzzles may not yield the answer to those puzzles.

So, why does anything exist?

Premise: If something exists it has a purpose. Therefore it follows from this observation of something:

- The purpose may be known, or unknown.
- Even in the most modern and technologically sophisticated societies, if that something is alive then its life is invariably entangled with one food chain or another, and the purpose of food chains is continuity.
- Therefore the purpose of life is the continuity of life.
- That's accomplished by being entangled in a food chain.
- Continuity of life is achieved by feeding life.
- For humans feeding life can be a complex dynamic, what with one thing leading to another, but all the causes and effects generated by any living thing trace back to that commonality of purpose.

Conclusion: Anything exists to fulfill a purpose. Living things exist for the purpose of links in a food chain ... which is yet another reason why it can be said that we only exist in relationship. If you have no relationship with a person, place, thing or thought, the lights may be on but nobody's home ... the one who was there could be formally meditating. This implies that existence is a function of cognizance, which implies that every living thing is aware of its own life but not necessarily by cognizance, if only by instinct, or by body knowledge that doesn't require cognizance.

The most primal relationship is to eat, and to be eaten. In society this translates into winning, or losing. Thus the primal attraction of football, sometimes primally celebrated with rioting.

if the cake says eat me...

-Imp

[Walker]

if the cake says eat me...

-Imp

... the baker probably used the wrong eggs, that he found in ...

[Impenitent]

the mad hatter's hat

-Imp

[Walker]

strange fruits from the hatter's head

[Skepdick]

The world we experience is, in this sense, explained by just assuming logic and not anything else.

That's not quite true. You have to assume logic + the principle of explosion.

There are a handful of logics which reject this principle.

Paraconsistent logic. Relevance logic. Intuitionistic Logic (doesn't technically reject it, but makes it super hard to derive a truth-explosion from contradiction). Fuzzy logic gives you nuance so you don't have to be boxed into true-false dichotomies (and avoid explosions). Dialetheism.

[Walker]

Wearing it backwards makes it mad.