The Reality of Existence

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello Philosophers!

Like many of you, I'm a big fan of Closer to Truth videos. And of course, a big fan of Metaphysics, imagine that!

I thought I would take this opportunity to post a video about same (sort of a Metaphysics 101), not only to bring the subject matter into focus, but to posit the supposition : What does it mean for something to exist. Any and all comments welcome.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

[Nick_A]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I watched the video and thought of Plato's Sun analogy

The video defines metaphysics as the human search for wholeness. Science and what we call the realities of life are concerned with partial truths. Wholeness or partial truths. How does human being reconcile the attractions of these two opposing paths?

In the Sun analogy, visible relationships which man interprets into pragmatic duality is confined to and expressed as opinions. They take place below the sun which illuminates them through sight provided by our sun. The intelligible truths or those closer to reality on this vertical scale, takes place above the Sun and closer to our source. They can be experienced by the mind's eye

A true seeker of truth Must become able to put the the relationships of the animalistic dualistic impressions taken in through the sight of the sun, into the perspective of the higher truths revealed by the mind's eye. It is the key to making metaphysics and science complimentary. How can they become complimentary?

[ExistenceofSelf]

****(This is a Social Engineer's Perspective)****

You said; "What does it mean for something to exist."

(I will take that as more of a question. This is about the question and not the video. The concept of to exist or existence is a complex topic. I will simplify the information in perspective.)


**** Introduction ****

Being forced to exist is a burden we all share, not because we exist, but due to the understanding that we exist. This understanding stands on a perspective measurement of ourselves in proportion to each other and everything else. This is to give perspective of ourselves to reason with a concept we invented for ourselves.


**** What Is Existence? ****

The objective concept of existence is, inevitable constructs of sufficient/insufficient and insufficient/sufficient mathematical quantitative translations that manifest into a subjective experience through perspective observation.

The subjective concept of existence is, experience in translation within and of an individual's perspective self.

Existence manifests subjectively/objectively through observational measurement of movement, to formulate internal and external environmental perspective experience. Existence manifests objectively/subjectively through inevitable mathematics regardless of observation or perspective experience. Objective existence only facilitates the subjectivity of perspective experience.


**** What Does It Mean To Exist? ****

That answer is determined on how an individual defines their perspective self as experiencing in-proportion to the individual's external environment for reasoning of themselves. However, there is still a core perspective to ground on when "measuring."

There are cognitive abstraction of layers that can be measured as constructs of consciousness. Artificial Intelligence is being constructed using layers to eventually equate into perspective consciousness for example. Consciousness is simply a series of realizations that organize into an individual realizing themselves in experience and observation. The complexity that builds from this only adds to the perspective of being more "conscious." Detract, and the complexity becomes more automated or less "conscious."

To exist and existence are subjectively parallel symmetries that in concept are objectively the same and are made different by perspective.

To exist refers to social influence from the concept of "life." Existence is an extension of internal reflection that derives from the concept, to exist. A good example is the concept; "I am therefor I think, and I think therefor I am." Those two in reference are the same, however, different in experience in what an individual has to think of first.

To exist is in reference to I am, and existence is in reference to I think. I am then I think, or, I think then I am.


**** The Reality And Illusion Of Existence ****

When the math comes full circle to itself, it will either rip apart or come together. Zero or 100% is the inevitable conclusion of calculation. If all information comes together, then the information will neutralize itself into 100% quantitative resolve. In theory this is the nothing of something and information can continue building into dimension. If all information crashes in on itself or rips apart, then the information goes back to nothing and has to start all over again.

Illusion and Reality are in equal spectrum to each other. Reality can be illusion and illusion can be reality. In theory, it was our illusion that started our reality, and our reality that affirms our illusion. The cycle of this is what keeps an individual in existence or existing.


**** Conclusion ****

The concept of existence or to exist truly does not matter. The calculation is not necessary for mathematics to occur and build upon itself. Existential perspective information is only needed for complex information to help resolve insufficient prompts and calculations of circumstance and experience. An individual realizing themselves as existing is simply a symptom of natural occurrence, not by influential design for specification.

To measure yourself is to measure existence. To measure your existence is to measure self.

When an individual has established their perspective purpose and reasoning for themselves, then they will get a proportionate meaning of perspective measurement for existence and the existence of themselves.

Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler (Social Engineer)

[3017Metaphysician]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I watched the video and thought of Plato's Sun analogy

The video defines metaphysics as the human search for wholeness. Science and what we call the realities of life are concerned with partial truths. Wholeness or partial truths. How does human being reconcile the attractions of these two opposing paths?

In the Sun analogy, visible relationships which man interprets into pragmatic duality is confined to and expressed as opinions. They take place below the sun which illuminates them through sight provided by our sun. The intelligible truths or those closer to reality on this vertical scale, takes place above the Sun and closer to our source. They can be experienced by the mind's eye

A true seeker of truth Must become able to put the the relationships of the animalistic dualistic impressions taken in through the sight of the sun, into the perspective of the higher truths revealed by the mind's eye. It is the key to making metaphysics and science complimentary. How can they become complimentary?

Nick!

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the video touched on that last question towards the 21:00 minute mark. I have my own thoughts on it (and I agree in that particular video segment that 'consciousness' is the last "litmus test" for science/physics/metaphysics). As such, just a basic 101 distinction from Physicist Paul Davies:

….metaphysics means the study of topics about physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature , and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying " reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of the will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any meaning-of-life questions.


Sticking to the last question, in a way, I believe they already do (are complimentary) by asking synthetic a priori questions about the universe (cause and effect). And that's because most all physical theories start with synthetic propositions that can be tested. Accordingly, some physicists may be in-the-closet metaphysician's and don't even know it LOL !

[chewybrian]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I am curious what your obvious reasons are. It felt like a chore to watch after you said he was in there, as I don't care for him, either. But, I have a suspicion we might have different reasons. I thought it was noteworthy that he said, as usual (if a little more kindly than usual) that dualism is a dead end. Then, toward the end, they pretty well said that consciousness was the one remaining puzzle for science (as if!).

If you buy that science has pretty well solved or is about to solve every question but "what is consciousness?", then why wouldn't you be drawn straight to dualism? Why is it not fair to think that if consciousness was material, that we would have discovered some clues as to what kind of thing or event it was? It seems like we have lots of correlations, but no direct access to consciousness itself (other than me to mine and, presumably, you to yours).

I'm talking the long way around to admitting that I still consider myself a dualist, and I am shocked that such a large percentage of would-be or actual philosophers don't fall in line with Descartes (not about God, but just about the mind being something different than everything else). It behaves differently, and (perhaps, according to what they seemed to say in the video) it is the final frontier, or even the only thing or event that science never has and never will understand and explain. Why would something so up close and personal to all of us be so elusive to describe and understand unless it was different from everything else that we understand? Why would it play by a completely different set of rules unless it was a completely different animal?

Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I am curious what your obvious reasons are. It felt like a chore to watch after you said he was in there, as I don't care for him, either. But, I have a suspicion we might have different reasons. I thought it was noteworthy that he said, as usual (if a little more kindly than usual) that dualism is a dead end. Then, toward the end, they pretty well said that consciousness was the one remaining puzzle for science (as if!).

If you buy that science has pretty well solved or is about to solve every question but "what is consciousness?", then why wouldn't you be drawn straight to dualism? Why is it not fair to think that if consciousness was material, that we would have discovered some clues as to what kind of thing or event it was? It seems like we have lots of correlations, but no direct access to consciousness itself (other than me to mine and, presumably, you to yours).

I'm talking the long way around to admitting that I still consider myself a dualist, and I am shocked that such a large percentage of would-be or actual philosophers don't fall in line with Descartes (not about God, but just about the mind being something different than everything else). It behaves differently, and (perhaps, according to what they seemed to say in the video) it is the final frontier, or even the only thing or event that science never has and never will understand and explain. Why would something so up close and personal to all of us be so elusive to describe and understand unless it was different from everything else that we understand? Why would it play by a completely different set of rules unless it was a completely different animal?

Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

CB!

Let me view that segment again and get back to you... . I thought that Dennett was actually advocating dualism when (if I remember correctly) he said "...we are not as 'unified' as we thing we are". Meaning, when he went into the whole 'third person' bit about just by merely asking ourselves questions, implied a dualistic type (ability/attribute )of conscious existence. Maybe I'm totally off the mark there... (?)

[3017Metaphysician]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I am curious what your obvious reasons are. It felt like a chore to watch after you said he was in there, as I don't care for him, either. But, I have a suspicion we might have different reasons. I thought it was noteworthy that he said, as usual (if a little more kindly than usual) that dualism is a dead end. Then, toward the end, they pretty well said that consciousness was the one remaining puzzle for science (as if!).

If you buy that science has pretty well solved or is about to solve every question but "what is consciousness?", then why wouldn't you be drawn straight to dualism? Why is it not fair to think that if consciousness was material, that we would have discovered some clues as to what kind of thing or event it was? It seems like we have lots of correlations, but no direct access to consciousness itself (other than me to mine and, presumably, you to yours).

I'm talking the long way around to admitting that I still consider myself a dualist, and I am shocked that such a large percentage of would-be or actual philosophers don't fall in line with Descartes (not about God, but just about the mind being something different than everything else). It behaves differently, and (perhaps, according to what they seemed to say in the video) it is the final frontier, or even the only thing or event that science never has and never will understand and explain. Why would something so up close and personal to all of us be so elusive to describe and understand unless it was different from everything else that we understand? Why would it play by a completely different set of rules unless it was a completely different animal?

Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

….in other words, at the very least, it begs the question : What is self-awareness(?).

[PoeticUniverse]

Metaphysics 101)

Of the Forced Defaults for the Only Existence

There can only be the one Existence,
Forced, with no option for it not to be,
Which is no mystery because the ‘Nil’
Cannot be, even as spacers within.

This must-be partless Existence Eterne
Can’t end, so it must remain as itself,
Transmuting into multiplicity
Of the temporary as ‘elementaries’.

Since Existence has to be, of not ‘null’,
‘Supernatural Magic’ isn’t required;
So, there’s only the natural as the base;
One degree of freedom is its forced default.

Motion is a must, or naught could happen;
It can’t have parts, so it’s continuous;
Since no end, it can return to itself.
There can’t be anything else but it.

It is everywhere, with no gaps of ‘zilch’,
Waving, as that’s ubiquitous in nature;
Rearranging to the elementary
Particles at stable rungs of quanta.

Only quantum fields fit the criteria;
‘Particles as spigots’ failed to flow,
Newton’s ‘Space’ and ‘Time’ disappeared via
Einstein’s relativity special and general.

Quantum field points that just spring up and down
Form the field’s waves by dragging on others.
These sums of harmonic oscillations
Force the fixed quanta energy levels.

So the wave estimate proved to be right;
An electron/photon goes through both slits
Because it is a spread out field quantum.
Quantum jumps are due no wave fractionals.

The universe is a large quantum field,
For the 24 quantum fields interact,
This containing the whole of physics.
There’s no ‘God’s’ eye view; anything happens.

The anything in the massive universe
Is mostly a lot of extravagant junk,
But on Earth the right conditions obtained,
Our planet being where and what it has to be.

Cosmic and biological evolution were forced,
Stars collecting the elementaries,
Producing all the atomic elements
That went on to molecules, cells, and more.

All this took 13.75 billion years,
Since, again, there were no hoodoo shortcuts.
Life and consciousness emerged, no ‘Mojo’—
Since before that time on Earth there was none!

An extra distinct realm isn’t needed,
As ‘intangible’, ‘ineffable’, etc.,
For it only begs the question—a shock,
And as separate couldn’t have effect.

The ‘nonmaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
Haven’t ever showed anything to date,
Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
The ‘metaphysical’ search has to fail.

We, too, are forced to exist.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have a thing about videos on computers, so I'll wait to see who comments, and what they say. But I, too, am a big fan of metaphysics and metaphysical questions.

PC1

Thanks. Albeit I'm not big fan of Dennett (for obvious reasons), oddly enough, I happen to agree with him in the (entire) interview (he discusses dualism, the role pf philosophy in general, etc..)… .

I am curious what your obvious reasons are. It felt like a chore to watch after you said he was in there, as I don't care for him, either. But, I have a suspicion we might have different reasons. I thought it was noteworthy that he said, as usual (if a little more kindly than usual) that dualism is a dead end. Then, toward the end, they pretty well said that consciousness was the one remaining puzzle for science (as if!).

If you buy that science has pretty well solved or is about to solve every question but "what is consciousness?", then why wouldn't you be drawn straight to dualism? Why is it not fair to think that if consciousness was material, that we would have discovered some clues as to what kind of thing or event it was? It seems like we have lots of correlations, but no direct access to consciousness itself (other than me to mine and, presumably, you to yours).

I'm talking the long way around to admitting that I still consider myself a dualist, and I am shocked that such a large percentage of would-be or actual philosophers don't fall in line with Descartes (not about God, but just about the mind being something different than everything else). It behaves differently, and (perhaps, according to what they seemed to say in the video) it is the final frontier, or even the only thing or event that science never has and never will understand and explain. Why would something so up close and personal to all of us be so elusive to describe and understand unless it was different from everything else that we understand? Why would it play by a completely different set of rules unless it was a completely different animal?

Can you erase the distinction between mind and matter with anything other than determinism? Determism seems to be a way of saying that the mind must be like everything else because everything else is like everything else. That doesn't sound like much of a case to me.

Before we explore some of your other questions (which are great questions-IMO) I watched it again and it appears that Dennett is equivocating a bit. On the one hand he seems to be dissing dualism, then goes on about third person self-awareness. Give me your take on that if you would?

One of many other interesting observations from the video was also where the gentleman physicist before Dennett, was perhaps missing the obvious. I was somewhat astonished by his comment regarding his lack of interest in understanding the "truth"....

[Nick_A]

Meta

Thanks for your thoughts. I think the video touched on that last question towards the 21:00 minute mark. I have my own thoughts on it (and I agree in that particular video segment that 'consciousness' is the last "litmus test" for science/physics/metaphysics). As such, just a basic 101 distinction from Physicist Paul Davies:

….metaphysics means the study of topics about physics, as apposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature , and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying " reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of the will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any meaning-of-life questions.

As I understand it, the scientific and practical mind functions by dualistic reason. The universe is a triune reality sustained by universal laws and relative consciousness. If true it is impossible for the purpose of the triune universe to be understood by dualistic reason.

The trouble with a lot of dualistic reason contemplating the greater realities is that it is bottom up reason. The necessary triune reason is top down and begins with conscious contemplation of our ineffable source to experience noesis or higher mind. The third force which reveals meaning is ignored in favor of arguing opinions or the result of dualism.

In the future, when the law of the INCLUDED middle is as common s the law of the EXCLUDED middle or non-contradiction, it will become obvious why there is no natural contradiction between the essence of religion and the essence of science. It is a matter of experiencing the fullness of reason

[chewybrian]

Before we explore some of your other questions (which are great questions-IMO) I watched it again and it appears that Dennett is equivocating a bit. On the one hand he seems to be dissing dualism, then goes on about third person self-awareness. Give me your take on that if you would?

The guy is bizzaro Santa Claus. He's here to take away all our hopes and dreams and assure us that we can't possibly exist, and he's bloody happy about it.

I don't think he used the term self-awareness, because I don't think he believes in the self. I don't see that he was equivocating, but only trying to open the mind of the dualist to possibly help them see that he "must" be correct. He asks us to look down on ourselves, to see that we ask ourselves questions, and to see that the implication HAS to be (his emphasis) that we are not as unified as we think we are.

The question to Dennet was something like: "What are some of the wrong questions to ask, the ones that would lead me in the wrong direction?"

Dennet dodges the question and instead decides to tell us what he feels is the wrong perspective from which to begin asking questions. This, ironically, is the one which acknowledges the existence of the one asking the question! He says that looking at my consciousness as a single thing is a mistake, that there are competing inputs going into it all the time, that I am not in control at all. There is no experiencer, in his view, but only the occurrence of the experience. He suggests instead that we look at ourselves from above or outside, from that third person perspective. But, how could I follow his direction if experience simply happens? How can I decide what I am going to think about or how if I am not in control?

I take it that he wants us to dissect our own consciousness in order to understand it (on his terms). He wants us to see that consciousness is only a reflection or effect of the material processes occurring in other places in our body, because it wraps up neatly with the determinist/materialist/no free will presentation. He talks about the many mistakes that philosophy has made when people pursued their wishes or beliefs instead of hard fact. He wants to imply that most peoples' understanding of consciousness or free will are only more steps in the long line of wishful mistakes destined to be shown for what they are in the end. As I said about determinism in general, he seems convinced that consciousness will be shown to be material and subject to cause and effect simply because everything else has, ignoring the categorical differences in the attributes of consciousness when compared to anything else.

[stevie]

What does it mean for something to exist. Any and all comments welcome.

I don't need a video to answer this question. For something to exist all that is needed is a subject that is intent on existence.

[PoeticUniverse]

Extended…

On the One and Only Existence

Prolog

In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
Of the galaxy, safe from the core’s harm,
The philosophers meet in the forum,
As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.

We search for the Start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
The Music of the Spheres’ Magnificat.

We follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.

Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!

We are ever in touch with the unknown,
For that’s ever the reach of science shown.
Reality is grasped by focusing
On what interacts with what and the means.

There is a realm of happenings, not things,
For ‘things’ don’t remain the same on time’s wings.
What remains through time are processes—
Relations between different systems.

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which the particles grow.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualify as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields are mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

There’s a lightness of elemental being
Since any more would have to be of parts,
And thus go beyond the fundamental arts.
The puffs of vacuum energy are small.


On the Forced Defaults for the Only Existence

There can only be the one Existence,
Forced, with no option for it not to be,
Which is no mystery because the ‘Nil’
Cannot be, even as spacers within.

There is neither ‘Full’ nor ‘Null’,
But a lightness of being near ‘Zero’,
As that’s what the universe amounts to,
Nor ‘Nil’s kin as ‘Still’, since there’s constant change.

This must-be partless Existence Eterne
Can’t end, so it must remain as itself,
Transmuting into multiplicity
Of the temporary as ‘elementaries’.

Since Existence has to be, of not ‘null’,
‘Supernatural Magic’ isn’t required;
So, there’s only the natural as the base;
One degree of freedom is its forced default.

Motion is a must, or naught could happen;
It can’t have parts, so it’s continuous;
Since no end, it can return to itself.
There can’t be anything else but it.

It is everywhere, with no gaps of ‘zilch’,
Waving, as that’s ubiquitous in nature;
Rearranging to the elementary
Particles at stable rungs of quanta.

Only quantum fields fit the criteria;
‘Particles as spigots’ failed to flow,
Newton’s ‘Space’ and ‘Time’ disappeared via
Einstein’s relativity special and general.

Quantum field points that just spring up and down
Form the field’s waves by dragging on others.
These sums of harmonic oscillations
Force the fixed quanta energy levels.

So the wave estimate proved to be right;
An electron/photon goes through both slits
Because it is a spread out field quantum.
Quantum jumps are due no wave fractionals.

The universe is a large quantum field,
For the 24 quantum fields interact,
This containing the whole of physics.
There’s no ‘God’s’ eye view; anything happens.

The anything in the massive universe
Is a lot of needed ‘extravagant’ stuff,
Since on Earth the right conditions obtained,
Our planet being where and what it has to be.

Cosmic and biological evolution were forced,
Stars collecting the elementaries,
Producing all the atomic elements
That went on to molecules, cells, and more.

All this took 13.75 billion years,
Since, again, there were no hoodoo shortcuts.
Life and consciousness emerged, no ‘Mojo’—
Since before that time on Earth there was none!

We, too, are forced to exist.

‘Magic’ has fallen by the wayside, it
As trancendence an intangible writ,
Unable to be distinct from matter,
Having to talk/walk the talk/walk of it.

An extra distinct realm isn’t needed,
As ‘intangible’, ‘ineffable’, etc.,
For it only begs the question—a shock!—
And as separate couldn’t have effect.

The ‘nonmaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
Haven’t shown anything at all to date,
Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
The ‘metaphysical’ search has to fail.

The ‘God’ idea has fallen from its throne;
Forever quantum fields’ excitations’
Elementary quanta roll on those fields
That are everywhere and remain themselves.


Epilog

The quantum fields’ unity is the Whole,
Being ever, exhausting Reality,
Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
As partless and continuous monads.

All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
Though secondary and temporary,
Arising and at some time returning;
The quantum fields are Indivisible.

Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
Whose excitations at harmonics cloak
The quanta with the stability
To persist and thus obtain mobility.

The elementary particles beget,
As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
And combine in words to write the story
Of the stars, atoms, cells, and life’s glory.

Why Something?

Quantum states melt via uncertainty,
And this means that no quantum property
Can e’er be zero—a precise amount,
And so it is that motion can ne’er cease.

The Something

The quantum field is the bridge between ‘Nil’
And basic matter, and can ne’er be still;
Thus the ‘vacuum’ is the quietest field—
The closest approach to ‘Nothing’ that can be.

No ‘Null’ nor Matter Full

‘Nothing’ had no chance to be the hero,
Plus QM scrubs the idea of zero
Out of the physical world of being;
‘Zilch’ ne’er sleeps, but is e’er up to something.

A Mere Blip

But for the small quantum uncertainty,
The Cosmos sums to naught, its lunch being free:
No net electric charge; a weightless brick;
Minus-potential = plus-kinetic.

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!
Such as Nought, Stillness, and the Block’s decree,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
The Unfixed Will, Blame, Fame, and Theity.