Logic, Language, and Nothing: A Minimal Philosophy of Existence
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:55 pm
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.
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.