Must existence be so?

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't accept that anything "just is" and so the decision to make the sky blue must have been an arbitrary one.

Doesn't saying that a decision was arbitrary mean that there was no reason that it had to be that way, i.e. that that decision "just was"?

Regardless, the strength of the force of gravity on Earth's surface, for example, is the result of Earth's mass and radius and the nature of how gravity works. You could change it by changing one of the factors responsible for it, but you couldn't change it without changing one of those factors, and thereby also changing other things. (For example, if the pull of gravity on Earth were to suddenly double "without altering anything else", that would mean that the fundamental laws of physics had been altered to allow for arbitrary local exceptions instead of applying universally, which is one heck of a frickin' change!)

Or, as an even more basic example... if I put exactly one apple next to exactly one other apple on a table, there aren't then "arbitrarily" two apples on the table. Certainly, we can conceive of matters being otherwise; we can even imagine a world in which grouping two apples together necessarily conjures a third, and we can use such scenarios to explore the question of whether mathematics bears any necessary relation to the real world and/or contains any sort of inherent truth. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice, the applicability of 1 + 1 = 2 to combining groups of apples is simply a specific case of the more general applicability of addition to combining groups of apples, and thus, not arbitrary.

as long as it's internally consistent, any set of laws could describe a universe. Maybe they all exist, and ours is the only one which has life, though I personally doubt they exist.

While "the universe" may be defined as "everything that exists", it seems to me that one can as easily flip that around and define "existing" as "being part of the universe"! And since obviously by "the universe" we mean the universe that we live in, then existence is rather relative, is it not? Another logically possible universe is just as real to its inhabitants as ours is to us. What would it even mean for your perspective to be objectively more correct than theirs?

[factotum]

If we were to attempt to transpose the properties ("laws", "constants", etc.) of our universe onto, say, a two-dimensional universe, life as we know it would not be possible. Futurama explores this in one episode, in which the Professor explains that if their 2D forms had digestive tracts, they would immediately fall apart.

There are methods of eating that don't require digestive tracts--for instance, the way amoebas do it would probably work fine in two dimensions. Something eating that way wouldn't have enough energy to develop intelligence in our universe, but if you're positing something as ridiculous as a two-dimensional universe to start with, it doesn't seem difficult to get round that little issue!

[Donnadogsoth]

Doesn't saying that a decision was arbitrary mean that there was no reason that it had to be that way, i.e. that that decision "just was"?

There must be a reason, but a purely arbitrary decision's reason is contained entirely within the decider's mind. So, for examples, the necessity of number comes from Number itself as embodied in the Origin. The same with Identity as the source of logic. The arbitrary decisions the Origin makes flow from its own internal structure and not from external, physical ones.

[Grinner]

There must be a reason, but a purely arbitrary decision's reason is contained entirely within the decider's mind. So, for examples, the necessity of number comes from Number itself as embodied in the Origin. The same with Identity as the source of logic. The arbitrary decisions the Origin makes flow from its own internal structure and not from external, physical ones.

I don't think we have enough information to make this determination.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think we have enough information to make this determination.

Nor will we ever. The Origin as such must be apprehended through a leap of intuition, similar to the leap out of solipsism, and the leap to understanding the world in terms of principle.

[Devils_Advocate]

There must be a reason, but a purely arbitrary decision's reason is contained entirely within the decider's mind.

Well, is there a reason for that reason? And if so, is there also a reason for that reason, and so on and so forth? Without infinite regress, you eventually bump into something that "just is". And even with infinite regress, isn't it arbitrary to have that chain and not another?

My personal answer, in a nutshell, is "Yes, it is arbitrary; things only exist in reference to 'universes of discourse'; the very concept of existence in an absolute sense seems to me inherently confused."

[skinwants]

They are the only verbs that can be used in the passive voice though in the process they become intransitive.

The ball does not do anything to John. While the prepositional phrase "by John" contains important information, it is no longer filling a necessary role, so it can be though it does not have to be removed, to create a simple passive sentence.This sentence means, quite literally, that John is, in fact in existence. The verb is descriptive of John, and it cannot be transferred to a direct object.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well, is there a reason for that reason? And if so, is there also a reason for that reason, and so on and so forth? Without infinite regress, you eventually bump into something that "just is". And even with infinite regress, isn't it arbitrary to have that chain and not another?

My personal answer, in a nutshell, is "Yes, it is arbitrary; things only exist in reference to 'universes of discourse'; the very concept of existence in an absolute sense seems to me inherently confused."

Remember that the principle is of sufficient reason. It is sufficient reason for the nature of the Universe that the Origin exists and has a particular nature from which the Universe is derived. If we then ask, “Where did the Origin come from?” we make a categorical error; the Origin necessarily exists because nothingness is incoherent—something timeless had to exist, and since the Universe changes and time measures change, the Universe can't be its own Origin.

[Devils_Advocate]

nothingness is incoherent

How so?

Whether it's logically impossible for nothing to exist depends on what existence is. What does "exist" mean? What's the difference between something existing and the same thing not existing? It seems to me that in practice it's all relative, but if you have an alternate ontological perspective I'd be interested to read about it.

[Donnadogsoth]

nothingness is incoherent

How so?

Whether it's logically impossible for nothing to exist depends on what existence is. What does "exist" mean? What's the difference between something existing and the same thing not existing? It seems to me that in practice it's all relative, but if you have an alternate ontological perspective I'd be interested to read about it.

Nothingness, as in absolute nothingness, as nothing replacing everything, cannot be predicated (cannot have qualities, including the quality of existence), cannot be generated (something always produces something out of itself), and cannot be indicated (let one point somewhere that is actually a display of nothing, rather than just being at most another something in place of something that one has lost sight of). Ergo, there can be no nothingness as an alternative to Something, and for reasons already given that Something must be the Origin.

[danzibr]

Nothingness, as in absolute nothingness, as nothing replacing everything, cannot be predicated (cannot have qualities, including the quality of existence), cannot be generated (something always produces something out of itself), and cannot be indicated (let one point somewhere that is actually a display of nothing, rather than just being at most another something in place of something that one has lost sight of). Ergo, there can be no nothingness as an alternative to Something, and for reasons already given that Something must be the Origin.

I'm going to have to read this a few times.

However, it does make me think... earlier I thought maybe if you remove an element (I need a better word) of the universe, maybe the whole thing comes crashing down and you get nothing. But... a universe "consisting" of nothing, yeah, not sure that works.

[Devils_Advocate]

The Origin as such must be apprehended through a leap of intuition, similar to the leap out of solipsism, and the leap to understanding the world in terms of principle.

How reliable do you consider your intuition to be, and on what basis? (If you only consider it reliable on the basis of intuition, obviously it's pretty questionable. Self-recommendation, on its own, doesn't count for much.)

Nothingness, as in absolute nothingness, as nothing replacing everything, cannot be predicated (cannot have qualities, including the quality of existence)

Why do you think so?

cannot be generated (something always produces something out of itself)

Mass and energy may be conserved in the observed universe, but I don't see anything logically inconsistent about something completely destroying itself.

and cannot be indicated (let one point somewhere that is actually a display of nothing, rather than just being at most another something in place of something that one has lost sight of).

My monitor displays nothing when it's turned off. Come on, that one was easy.

Ergo, there can be no nothingness as an alternative to Something

I don't see how this conclusion is meant to follow from your premises.