Physics, Metaphysics and God

[Ancient of Years]

Question for debate:

Concerning the issue of why anything exists, is a metaphysical solution possible that does not rely on a non-physical conscious volitional purposeful entity responsible for creating everything that exists?

That is, if one does not wish to claim that the physical universe requires no non-physical explanation, is it necessary to introduce the idea of God?

[Excubis]

[Replying to Ancient of Years]

There are never any measured physical values that are complex numbers. In electrical engineering a direct current circuit has only resistance, a scalar. In an alternating current circuit, frequency and phase shift must also be taken into account and impedance (a complex number) takes the place of resistance. But like resistance, impedance is not a directly measured value like voltage and amperage can be. It is the result of calculation, a way of accounting for physically detectable values (frequency and phase shift) that change over time. (BTW phase shift in this case is the sinusoidal waveforms of voltage and amperage not coinciding because of inductance and capacitance in the circuit that push the current ahead or hold it back respectively.)

Agree, especially when talking about waveforms, yet what is a ratio if not a varying measurement of working values. All working complex numbers have a corresponding differential of subsequent interacting complex(generally) numbers. I am not well versed in electrical engineering, although I know many parts of the above the actual application or engineered use I do not. Deduced values still need a measurement to work beyond concept the differential is the measurement and still does not need to be complete to produce an effect. If it is a working postulate.

The empty set does not exist in the real world. Consider the following.

As per assigned literal sets no in reality they do not exist, neither do number sets as well, my mistake to infer that in this OP. Yet interacting qualities do exist in reality and can be thought of as sets, not literally applied through place setting but that they interacting, and since interaction is real not just a concept I do not see why this would not be a set. I agree on empty set as in 0,0 as applied that was my error by misunderstanding as pertaining to OP.

Sets do not exist in reality. See my comments about apples above. Also see my comments in this post about mathematics and reality.

Now perhaps this is a miss understanding, sets exists in reality as matter, and these sets are not necessarily the same exactly but are transitional phases of each other. Also sets does not mean matching pair just a group of corresponding or similar interactive qualities. Now the underlying fabric of this reality of matter does not but does produce sets. I would then ask what is reality but that is a whole other OP. I think perhaps we have different view of what reality is. I myself do not see that as a reality but is that which produces a reality or sets. Although apart of reality is not one on its own just as the above would not be without the below.

Physical entities that are referenced by set descriptions might exist in reality. But the sets themselves do not exist independently of what they reference. The ‘bags’ are imaginary. Once the ‘bag’ is empty there are no longer any actually existing referents. (Of course a set might refer to things that are purely conceptual. Different subject.)

Are you talking about a Platonic realm of Ideals or something like that? If so we definitely have different notions of reality. My proposal explains why this universe exists and why we see what we see, all from a very simple assumption and no other mysteries. If there is anything else than physical universes (all possible physics of course) whoever proposes it has to account for its existence.

Nothing that has an interaction is imaginary, since the bag has a interaction of holding or grouping stuff together it is it's own set. Interaction is to me the only reality, those things that interact are sets since they interact not because I say so the concept(sets) are set by reality not vice versa. Now if we truly want to be literal as per concepts and abstracts then we cannot use any communication since all communication is a abstract based on perceived reality of that which is communicating. This has always been my issue having metaphysical and philosophical discussions. All words are concepts literally so who determines which are valid and which are not? Just my gripe is all.

I thought you were leaning toward a Max Planck type reality(different discussion) not a Platonic one, my misunderstanding.

Epistemology is about how we know. Phenomenology is about how we experience. Both are human-centric. What I am addressing here is what reality is all about ‘under the hood’ independent of human knowledge or experience. Metaphysics is about being.

Well I could differ to more than couple institutions that say otherwise but since Metaphysics is hard to pin down this doesn't matter really matter to me. My contention is it is impossible for human thoughts to be devoid of human knowledge or experience and therefor no true Meta Physics possible. Once again who has the authority to say what is real or not so isn't all human discussion just an abstract entirely based on our knowledge and experience. This mean no actual independence from being human since we are human. I have always found we accept literalism when suites our premise yet not when it doesn't especially in realms of what is reality. There is no being to a human other than being a human being. Everything else is a abstraction by a literal sense. Where is the line drawn on what is and is not and by whom? This has always been my issue with such discussions/debates.

Well I would first conclude there was never actually nothing since something had to interact with something for there to be anything at all. Then was anything ever created or are there two original forms that interacted and brought the universe. So therefore all reality has always been but in a different forms, such as ultra dense(a singular resting mass) and infinitely sparse(space), just a thought. Then also what is time to the whole mess, is it a by product or a precursor. Could space itself be time itself, so was space created but wouldn't it always have to be in order for any type of creation to occur. Can space be created when there is no space to begin with? Are we walking down the dimensional road now, yet then how can we perceive anything beyond our own dimensions. Is there higher dimensions or lower ones, is it the mingling of different dimensional wave lengths all coalescing to bring fourth reality.

This sounds rather like eternal inflation. That is an interesting topic but it still assumes that there are particular ‘ground rules’ driving the process of universe creation, ground rules that might have been different. Where did those rules come from? Why those rules?

Some does yes. Not rules, possible interactions, interaction only has one necessity is variables, meaning everything varies which leads to possibilities. I do not accept Eternal Inflation in it's entirety.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 50 by Ancient of Years]

First how can one logically determine what is possible beyond what is observed or measured. Although I agree that what is possible is but we can have no way to know what is entirely possible or even impossible so therefore possibilities is a abstraction and not of reality in a metaphysical terms.

I agree everything can be is but not necessarily that there are or are not other possibilities. This is outside what is and therefore is not real beyond imagination. We can only deduce from what is not what may be. Since what is, is it therefore coherent, consistent, but not necessarily complete, this to is of the same abstraction. We are able to find coherency and consistency from things that are not complete quite readily. I would use one such example as DNA with it's double helix structure will never be complete(closed).As per applied to the macro scale completeness seams present yet we know this is not true when applied to forces, ie: dark energy & dark matter to name a couple.

I do not have to determine what is possible. Reality takes care of that. What is impossible is ‘something’ that is incoherent (not a thing after all), inconsistent (self-contradictory) or incomplete (having insufficient explanation). That which is coherent, consistent and complete is possible. My proposal is that existence is simply being possible. Entities within a universe can be coherent and consistent. But only entire universes can be complete, being the full blown embodiments of possible configurations of ground rules.

Exactly my point reality determines what is possible not us saying there are possibilities so we cannot assume there are possibilities beyond those already produced. I agree that existence is because of possibilities but not than any other existence is possible since this one is and overrides others by being. Being possible means nothing if not actually being. So to say there are other possibilities to existence but this possibility is excludes others at this moment.

My proposal is that all possible universes exist. If it were the case that this universe is the only possible universe (a real long shot) this would not contradict my proposal. And my proposal would account for the existence of this universe by virtue of this universe being possible.

One always needs to consider uncertainty and if all possibilities existed there would be no more possibilities, this is not reality, since all things vary in this existence. If we want to apply a multi verse perspective they cannot due to reality of uncertainty all be of existence at once. Are you implying that all realities are overlaid and change and variation are illusions of these other realities overlaid onto ours? or is this Multi-Verse independent of one another with no interaction?

There is undoubtedly more to learn about how this universe works. Yet no matter how simple a ToE might eventually appear, the thought that it would have NO arbitrary elements is a difficult one.

If for example this hypothetical ToE had 3 open spatial dimensions, 6 rolled up dimensions and 1 time dimension it would have to somehow explain why 3-6-1 is the only possible configuration. Not just that it is the only possible explanation for what we see. It would be circular reasoning to say that was the end of the road from the point of view of metaphysics. For this to be the only possible universe, the ToE would have to be the only possible consistent physical theory, period, with all other candidates being internally inconsistent, regardless of agreement or not with observations made in this universe. Another internally consistent theory could describe another existing universe.

Well, hmm first a ToE does not have to encompass possible universes nor realities only what made this one possible. There is nothing that says it has to show what would make another universe possible only that since this possibility is than therefor it is possible beyond just being. This is not the only possible universe but it is the only one we have to be in or even anything we know to be of. Why would it not consist of other explainable universes since uncertainty from knowing any causal effect outside what this reality stems from(it's own cause) there is no way to know. We exist here in this reality and so do all observations therefor we can only now what make this one possible.

There are 19 physical constants that have been quantified by observation and are plugged into the various theories by hand. As far as we now know their values are independent of each other. Future research might show that some of the constants are not independent but different aspects of something more fundamental. But to think that all 19 of these quite arbitrary seeming numeric values could somehow be reduced to zero numeric values put in by hand and still explain what we observe does not strike me as a reasonable expectation.

Agree uncertainty is the imperative to causation that is why only one possible universe or a multi-verse of all possibilities existing independently do not take such into account. You can still have possibilities as a precursor for existence and still have only one possibility at a time. Is this also not a fundamental aspect of being and not just a possibility, it actually is but doesn't dictate no others. The only truth is what made this possibility happen not others, and that does not say others are not possible in any way just that they didn't since this possibility occurred.

I will defer addressing your physical theories until such time as you may have the ‘much much more’ you mentioned to add to the present ‘tidbits’.

Yeah although part has now changed. I was doing a post on just that and checked some math to do with oscillations of black holes and realized my formulation for a RE(range of existence) was too limited to account for which is my underlying premise to explain. Although much I gained from that concept led me somewhere else, dynamic dimensional interaction, where as dimensions are not realms of existence but are the actual make up of literally everything. This is similar to purposed RE but set is at a negative power, with much more variation or form flexibility. I am now viewing Euclidean Space as the literal make up and cause for this possibility(universe), I am implying dimensions have real value as per an interactive quality or are of some substance and therefore support interacting dynamic forces and/or forms to be possible.

Dimension are states, of substance not just vectors for movement in 3D space. Space is a 1D substance in a volume, dimensions are perceived through effects, light is also a cross dimensional form which is why it is perceived being 3D solid(photon),2D line(beam/rays), and above 1D and below 2D(wave). The 2D state is a transitional state for interaction between forms. Ahh C speed of light and the constraints of anything moving through a vacuum, well if applied to dimensional forms and state, I would say it is actually the slowest speed in which any dimensional being(thing) can travel through the vacuum of space while keeping a coherent form in 3D, since velocity effects coherency of form and therefor dimensional state.

Time is a both a force and a dimension(but not like the others), it is the underlying causal effect of variation or possibilities to occur in this universe and is the 2D or transitional state for formation and decay of forms. Yet is a result of a 1D substance creating a 3D space which in turn is created by 2D substances. I will add there is no reason for anything but 2D to exist since all forms are created out of the interaction of a segments. So a collection of 2D substances(lines, strings, loops) that actually create the space and forces we perceive. There really is not limit to form using lines especially when they are allowed to curve and intersect. So what is my point, well since in this model space is a 1D substance but allows for the development of 2D, and 3D states to exist C is only true for a 3D state not existence itself relative to effects observed in a volume of a 1D substance.

Now what would the substance of a 1D substance be, well completely continuous, able to dissipate energy completely and efficiently since have no edges to cause any resistance. This is not 100% true in the reality of space but is only because it is contained in a barrier made from 2D substances which would confine it's continuous structure, this is time the constriction of a 1D substance, or energy conversion of a 1D substance being trapped.

Oh boy mass and how it pertains, well all current working formulas still hold true yet it is not matter that grants mass it is the empty space contained with in a field of matter. Since matter is a collection of alternating forms that all have empty space trapped this effect is compounded and has many transitional forms yet although independent values due to the dynamic dimensional interactions possible(basically forms).

I am not making nor attempting to look at forces that could create other universes but dimensions need to have variance and truly it is only 2 for a minimum, yet admit this is under the assumption dimensions are real and of tangible substance of some kind.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to Ancient of Years]

There are never any measured physical values that are complex numbers. In electrical engineering a direct current circuit has only resistance, a scalar. In an alternating current circuit, frequency and phase shift must also be taken into account and impedance (a complex number) takes the place of resistance. But like resistance, impedance is not a directly measured value like voltage and amperage can be. It is the result of calculation, a way of accounting for physically detectable values (frequency and phase shift) that change over time. (BTW phase shift in this case is the sinusoidal waveforms of voltage and amperage not coinciding because of inductance and capacitance in the circuit that push the current ahead or hold it back respectively.)

Agree, especially when talking about waveforms, yet what is a ratio if not a varying measurement of working values. All working complex numbers have a corresponding differential of subsequent interacting complex(generally) numbers. I am not well versed in electrical engineering, although I know many parts of the above the actual application or engineered use I do not. Deduced values still need a measurement to work beyond concept the differential is the measurement and still does not need to be complete to produce an effect. If it is a working postulate.

Complex numbers are useful for dealing with multiple variables. But the actual physical processes are not directly represented by the complex number. Impedance is not a single physical thing by itself. It is the overlapping effects of resistance, inductance and capacitance on current flow, each representing a real physical process. Impedance is a convenient tool but it is not a real thing in itself.

The empty set does not exist in the real world. Consider the following.

As per assigned literal sets no in reality they do not exist, neither do number sets as well, my mistake to infer that in this OP. Yet interacting qualities do exist in reality and can be thought of as sets, not literally applied through place setting but that they interacting, and since interaction is real not just a concept I do not see why this would not be a set. I agree on empty set as in 0,0 as applied that was my error by misunderstanding as pertaining to OP.

Sets are another example of a convenient fiction that can make it easier to deal with a complicated reality.

Sets do not exist in reality. See my comments about apples above. Also see my comments in this post about mathematics and reality.

Now perhaps this is a miss understanding, sets exists in reality as matter, and these sets are not necessarily the same exactly but are transitional phases of each other. Also sets does not mean matching pair just a group of corresponding or similar interactive qualities. Now the underlying fabric of this reality of matter does not but does produce sets. I would then ask what is reality but that is a whole other OP. I think perhaps we have different view of what reality is. I myself do not see that as a reality but is that which produces a reality or sets. Although apart of reality is not one on its own just as the above would not be without the below.

Physical entities that are referenced by set descriptions might exist in reality. But the sets themselves do not exist independently of what they reference. The ‘bags’ are imaginary. Once the ‘bag’ is empty there are no longer any actually existing referents. (Of course a set might refer to things that are purely conceptual. Different subject.)

Are you talking about a Platonic realm of Ideals or something like that? If so we definitely have different notions of reality. My proposal explains why this universe exists and why we see what we see, all from a very simple assumption and no other mysteries. If there is anything else than physical universes (all possible physics of course) whoever proposes it has to account for its existence.

Nothing that has an interaction is imaginary, since the bag has a interaction of holding or grouping stuff together it is it's own set. Interaction is to me the only reality, those things that interact are sets since they interact not because I say so the concept(sets) are set by reality not vice versa. Now if we truly want to be literal as per concepts and abstracts then we cannot use any communication since all communication is a abstract based on perceived reality of that which is communicating. This has always been my issue having metaphysical and philosophical discussions. All words are concepts literally so who determines which are valid and which are not? Just my gripe is all.

I thought you were leaning toward a Max Planck type reality(different discussion) not a Platonic one, my misunderstanding.

Real entities referenced by set definitions certainly interact with other entities. So do other real entities that have not been designated as members of sets. But being designated as belonging to a set or not or being assigned to multiple sets has no effect whatsoever on the real entity. Sets do nothing that their members do not already do. Sets are imaginary. They are convenient fictions that do not exist in reality.

I am very definitely not pushing a Platonic type reality. Just the opposite: the Ideal Forms that are supposed to inhabit a Platonic realm are human inventions - approximations or convenient tools abstracted from the human perception of reality but not in fact existing in that reality. You did not misunderstand anything. My trying to talk about such far out subjects with little time for review is probably at fault.

Epistemology is about how we know. Phenomenology is about how we experience. Both are human-centric. What I am addressing here is what reality is all about ‘under the hood’ independent of human knowledge or experience. Metaphysics is about being.

Well I could differ to more than couple institutions that say otherwise but since Metaphysics is hard to pin down this doesn't matter really matter to me. My contention is it is impossible for human thoughts to be devoid of human knowledge or experience and therefor no true Meta Physics possible. Once again who has the authority to say what is real or not so isn't all human discussion just an abstract entirely based on our knowledge and experience. This mean no actual independence from being human since we are human. I have always found we accept literalism when suites our premise yet not when it doesn't especially in realms of what is reality. There is no being to a human other than being a human being. Everything else is a abstraction by a literal sense. Where is the line drawn on what is and is not and by whom? This has always been my issue with such discussions/debates.

It is the subject matter that distinguishes the three. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Phenomenology is the study of experience. Metaphysics is the study of being. Metaphysics is not devoid of human knowledge any more than automotive engineering is. But automotive engineering is not about knowledge. Neither is metaphysics. If that was not clear from what I said chalk it up to poor phrasing on my part.

Well I would first conclude there was never actually nothing since something had to interact with something for there to be anything at all. Then was anything ever created or are there two original forms that interacted and brought the universe. So therefore all reality has always been but in a different forms, such as ultra dense(a singular resting mass) and infinitely sparse(space), just a thought. Then also what is time to the whole mess, is it a by product or a precursor. Could space itself be time itself, so was space created but wouldn't it always have to be in order for any type of creation to occur. Can space be created when there is no space to begin with? Are we walking down the dimensional road now, yet then how can we perceive anything beyond our own dimensions. Is there higher dimensions or lower ones, is it the mingling of different dimensional wave lengths all coalescing to bring fourth reality.

This sounds rather like eternal inflation. That is an interesting topic but it still assumes that there are particular ‘ground rules’ driving the process of universe creation, ground rules that might have been different. Where did those rules come from? Why those rules?

Some does yes. Not rules, possible interactions, interaction only has one necessity is variables, meaning everything varies which leads to possibilities. I do not accept Eternal Inflation in it's entirety.

Interactions follow some form of orderly process – laws, parameters, values, whatever - which I am calling by the convenient handle of ‘ground rules’. These ‘rules’ are inherent in the fabric of reality for a given universe.

Out of time. Will try to get to your other post tomorrow.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 52 by Excubis]

Dimension are states, of substance not just vectors for movement in 3D space. Space is a 1D substance in a volume, dimensions are perceived through effects, light is also a cross dimensional form which is why it is perceived being 3D solid(photon),2D line(beam/rays), and above 1D and below 2D(wave). The 2D state is a transitional state for interaction between forms. Ahh C speed of light and the constraints of anything moving through a vacuum, well if applied to dimensional forms and state, I would say it is actually the slowest speed in which any dimensional being(thing) can travel through the vacuum of space while keeping a coherent form in 3D, since velocity effects coherency of form and therefor dimensional state.

Wow really screwed that one ha. C is not slowest but fastest speed to travel through space and maintain a coherent 3D form.

[Jashwell]

First to make sure my point is clear: An apple is particular thing. What exactly constitutes the apple could be a matter of opinion, e.g., is the dust on the apple part of the apple or not? It is also constantly if subtly changing. (Ultimately there is only the dance of the universe. It is convenient for us to label a certain temporary configuration ‘apple’. But no matter.) But whatever one wishes to define as the apple there are real aspects of its makeup that will be left out of any human description of even an individual apple. My use of the term ‘specific’ as opposed to ‘specification’ has probably caused confusion. I will try to be clearer.

As said, a particular apple – however delineated – possesses (at least temporarily) a great multitude of very definite physical aspects. Although it is not possible for humans to write a full list of specifications, it should be possible to list enough details to be able to distinguish this apple from any other apple. The apple itself is of course a different apple from any other apple but we are talking about a list of specifications made by humans.

Any given apple is therefore very specific and can be distinguished from any other apple. A certain box of particular apples is therefore very specific. But a box containing no apples cannot be distinguished from any other box containing no apples. An empty box is non-specific. (I am ignoring whatever else might be in the box that is not an apple.)

‘Nothing’, in this case the condition of there being no apples present, is non-specific.

For apples, all that's been done is you've said a specific apple might be more specific than a specific empty box - which may be true, but that doesn't mean apples in a box are more specific than empty boxes, or that the configuration of an empty box in general is less specific than any apple-entailing configuration. I could argue that by meaning a given apple, you don't just mean the apple-ness of it, but every detail it could possibly have (as opposed to properties all conceptual (and real) apples could have). That extra required specification is why "an apple in a box" isn't more specific than "an empty box" - because it stops being "an apple in a box" and becomes "this apple in a box", or "a red apple in a box", "a lone apple in a box", etc.

It doesn't matter if the label apple is an abstraction or if the terms "box with apples" and "box with no apples" are abstractions. "Box with no apples" is still more specific. If you took all the concrete instances of "a box with no apples", and all the concrete instances of "a box with apples", there would be far fewer configurations on part of the no-apple boxes.

“Box with apples� is not itself a thing. A particular box containing particular apples is a very specific thing. It can be readily distinguished from all other boxes containing apples. A box with no apples is the same as any other box with no apples. Totally non-specific.

We're talking about boxes with apples and boxes with no apples, and which is more specific. Whether they're "abstract or not" is of little concern. Whether or not they're abstract would itself vary between your multiverse's universes.

Any noun not prefixed by "a given", or specified with size and position/orientation in space and time (or similar) is vague and "abstract". If a box with apples doesn't count as a thing, neither does an apple.

Apples are not fundamental units. In physical reality they are all unique. The generic apple does not exist in reality. And physical reality is what I have been talking about all along, why it is and why it is what it is.

In physical reality, pretty much everything is unique. The generic empty box does not exist in reality. If, in physical reality, only one box with apples in existed but two empty boxes did, then you could just as easily say "a box with apples is more specific in reality". If that was the point, I'm sure someone out there could do the maths on how many empty boxes there are (I'd assume mostly box making and logistics companies) and how many boxes of apples there are. A few hundred years ago, I'm certain there would have been more boxes with apples in than empty boxes (an empty box is typically in disuse) - but I didn't think that's what we were arguing about.

Regardless, doesn't your idea of physical reality involve logical possibility and context?

Indefinite “something� does not describe reality. Nothing is not a thing. It is not at all specific because it does not exist. The idea of being specific is that is distinguishable from other specifics.

The idea of a concept or configuration being specific is how distinguishable it is from other concepts or configurations. It doesn't matter whether or not they're instantiated or otherwise represented in reality. The idea of a given thing being specific is that its distinguishable from similar things.

"A pink, 80-foot tall elephant doesn't exist, therefore a pink, 80-foot tall elephant isn't specific... while an elephant might be, as it does exist" is plainly not valid.

If absolute nothing is the case the idea of being distinguished from something else is meaningless.

The configuration itself would plausibly be ultimately specific. It would be distinguishable from other possible (in any of the contexts of the word) configurations. As would everything.

If everything possible exists, the entre ensemble of ‘everything’ also cannot be distinguished from anything else because by definition there is no other thing that it can be distinguished from.

If I own one box, "my box" is specific - precisely because I don't have other boxes. (And of course there's the fact you can distinguish between a configuration of everything, one of nothing and one of some things.)

We know that absolute nothing is not the case. At least one something exists that is very specific – this universe. It is specific in that it can be described in specific terms that might be described in other contradictory ways. Example: there is such a thing as the speed of light and it has a particular value.

Whether there actually are other universes with other values is not the point. It is that specific descriptions can be applied. If there were other different universes this one could be distinguished. Other ‘nothings’ and other ‘somethings’ do not make sense.

Since absolute nothing is not the case we can ask why that is so. My proposal is that existence is simply being possible. Things exist because they can. Since existence IS being possible, all possibilities exist. Simple as that.

We can also ask why everything exists, and we can ask why nothing exists.
They're both askable questions.

In a variety of contexts, other nothings and somethings make plenty of sense. "My box contains, your box also contains nothing."

Yes, abstractions could be thought of as a kind of label. The photos on your hard disk could be the entries in your diary. (Perhaps they're of your reflection.)

I was not saying that labels are abstractions. I was saying that there are concrete things – a photo for example – that it could be reasonable to call an abstraction because to humans it is a record of certain characteristics of an actual concrete thing. A label is arbitrary and need have nothing to do with the thing. An abstraction presumably does.

A photo could refer to any one of a number of things. Some of which aren't even tangible (a digital image).

The digital image could be a representation of something never observed. Dragons anyone? It could even be a representation of something that cannot be, as in M.C. Escher prints. Most definitely not real. Abstractions are not real things. Likewise labels.

So a photo isn't a concrete thing ..?

Anything that would result from a possible configuration of ground rules exists in some universe. Consider my apple example above. It may be possible for some universe where physics is much more granular for some entity to be entirely describable by what we could recognize as a list of specifications. What is an abstraction in one universe, a non-exhaustive description, might correspond to a description that is exhaustive in another universe. But the entity in the other universe is not itself an abstraction. It is a real physical entity in accordance with whatever laws of physics apply to it. The correspondence between the ‘this-universe’ abstraction and the ‘that-universe’ entity would be coincidental, a result of all possible universes being realized and of the process by which the abstraction was made.

"A given thing" is never unspecific in its context. How do you tell that the context is specific and concrete?
It's just as easily arguable that objects themselves are abstractions.
Though this tangent doesn't really matter much for the topic any more.

[...]As usual there is also the issue of the conventions by which the entity being partially described in this-universe and the entry being fully described in that-universe are identified as separate from their respective universes for the purpose of description. So the entity is not an instantiation of an abstraction. The entity is physically real, a configuration within the overall context of the universe. The abstraction is not real.

I don't see how this follows.
Why isn't the entity an instantiation of an abstraction?

A Universe is not defined to be a single internally interacting entity, nor is a physical multiverse a contradiction - in fact it's the main form which theoretical multiverses take.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

I believe I commented someplace about how much of philosophy is all wrapped up in language. I do not find semantic difficulties to be of any consequence.

Sometimes I agree with this, other times I don't. I could see someone arguing that it's possible (if seemingly implausible) that everyone actually agrees on quite a lot of things, with semantic differences being the main obstacle.

A physical multiverse would imply following some particular laws of physics. That is contrary to the reasoning that leads to the multiverse, that what is possible exists, that existence is exactly being possible. An ‘eternal inflation’ type of physical multiverse, for example, would need to have physical laws that allowed inflation. That would require inflation to be an inherent property of what it means to exist. A whopping big assumption there. In addition, inflation involves specific parameters that determine how inflation operates. Where did those specific parameters come from? The other types of physical multiverses all have similar problems, requiring some form of pre-existing physics to explain everything else.

I am not concerned with how other people use the label ‘multiverse’. I have explained clearly how I am using it. And it is not physical.

What makes you think other physical laws are possible?
The line between logical and physical possibility is nearly as blurry as the meaning of the word possible itself.

...

My reference to Kolmogorov complexity was more along the lines of the complexity of the quantity itself.

A relatively simple program could output 982,451,653 (a prime), but a much simpler program could output 1000. An even simpler program could output 1024.

This brings up the subject of the mathematical multiverse, which proposes that every universe that can be mathematically described exists. (Mentioned in the wiki link you provided) The difference is that I do not require a universe to have a mathematical description. In addition to the issues that the word ‘description’ raises, I am not positive that reality can necessarily be described in full detail by mathematics, even excluding the obvious data gathering problem. My skepticism about this undoubtedly stems from long experience with engineering.

I can't think of anything that can't in concept be mathematically or programmatically described, but then I'm mathematically and programmatically describable.

Another possibly interesting tangent: there'll be lower data complexity in writing a program to output all of the prime numbers than some specific arbitrarily large prime number.

Existential Imperative

It is not improbable in the literal sense of the word (probability of 1), nor do I believe it improbable in any other sense - you can always ask a similar question, even in a multiverse (i.e. "Why is this Universe the way it is?"). It's not even evident that there are reasonable grounds for assuming other possibilities.

A given universe is the way it is because it is possible and all possible universes are realized. Shuffle a deck of cards. Look at the top card. Why is that card the top card? No matter what card was on top you would want to ask that question. Some card had to be. An observer of a universe is by definition part of that universe. In a universe that produces observers, those observers will observe that universe. Why is this mysterious? Why is this universe this universe and not another univer? Why are you you and not somebody else? The question makes no sense.

I'm not saying it does matter, only that if it does it then it matters for a multiverse as much as a single-possible universe.

You seem adamant on making me choose between discussing a multiverse and employing natural language.

She (Generic) is C.
She (Universe A) is A.
She (Universe B) is B.

A is an instance of C,
B is an instance of C,
A is not an instance of B.

It would take a long time to discuss the exact details of how we establish identity or other things in given contexts, i.e. what 'that bus' actually means (the physical vehicle? the scheduled arrival on this particular route? both? etc), but it's certainly meaningful and consistent to say they're both her. It's certainly the natural use of language.

The ‘She (Generic)’ that you label C is an abstraction and not a real thing. You are calling A an instance of C but that is merely a convention, a way of saying that A is a thing labeled ‘Mary’. Likewise B. Using another convention D (brunettes) A might satisfy that convention and B might not. But in the end A is A and B is B and neither of them is C or D. A and B might have similarities in some descriptive system but that system will only be a convention not a reality.

Natural language is a matter of convenience for human affairs. It is not a good tool for describing actual reality.

Why does it matter how abstract it is? Isn't balance "abstract" anyway?
Why the opposition to everything that appears abstract?

The speed of light is part of the ground rules of the universe (possibly fundamental, possibly derived from other fundamentals). It could be that in another universe there is a parameter that could reasonably be called ‘speed of light’ but has a different value. But it is not the same speed of light. It could be that in another universe there is an entity very similar to me. But if that entity gets hit by a bus I do not get a broken leg. That other entity is not me.

Is there a difference between "the ground rules" and what is?

You seem to be using personal identity again. I suppose I should say "'me' is an abstraction".

This apple will never be that apple, except that this apple then could be that apple now. Regardless of the confusing semantics, they're both apples.

As I pointed out above, the term ‘cat’ is a convention. If one looks at the possible spread of entities in different universes that might be labeled ‘cat’ the convention will eventually break down and become ambiguous. The same could be said of the ancestry of a given cat. Somewhere back in the genetic line there will be an ancestor that cannot reasonably be called a cat. Where in between then and now did ‘cats’ start? A matter of convention.

A lot of language is ambiguous. It often doesn't mean change languages.

What About Parsimony?

"Complete in themselves" is indistinguishable from "not complete". But what it's called doesn't matter.

Is 'Universes' just what all internally complete things are called?
How do we know that things within a Universe may not be internally complete?
How do we know that everything isn't internally complete?

Earth-like donkeys (remember those donkeys? ) require air and food to exist. No air? No food? No donkeys. The hypothesized universe consisting entirely of earth-like donkeys is not complete. It has aspects that require the presence of something that is in fact absent. The hypothesized donkeys are not complete in themselves. Since the hypothesized universe is to consist entirely of earth-like donkeys it is not complete and therefore does not exist.

How's such a Universe incomplete? When you say require, you mean they'll die (or similar) if they don't get it. Dying isn't incomplete, is it?

If they required it in the sense that it was necessary to be an earth-like donkey, e.g. a donkey-like body, it'd be a part of the Universe through the donkeys.

Only whole universes can be complete, being the embodiment of possible configurations of ground rules. If things within a universe were complete in themselves they would not be the result of the ground rules of that universe and therefore not part of that universe. If they were the product of the ground rules they would not be complete in themselves but dependent on the ground rules for their specific nature. Only universes can be complete.

How do you distinguish between the ground rules and the things?
Universes are allegedly complete in themselves. Something can be complete in two contexts. Why can't a subset of a Universe be partially complete in itself, and partially complete in the Universe?

What's the difference between a context and a Universe?

My other point is no longer relevant, as you've already gone one of two ways to which I referred. (I.e. that there is no general context for Universes/they are "incomplete"/"internally complete").

There is no overall physical context for all the universes, since that would be a contradiction. The reason all the universes exist is that they can, that existence is simply being possible. That is my proposal. You keep trying to insert a middleman. The entire point of the proposal is that no middlemen are needed.

The context of a universe is the unique configuration of ground rules from which the universe arises. Since the universe is exactly the result of the ground rules there is really no distinction. One goes with the other.

But one isn't the other.
Completeness is a requirement, completeness-ing isn't.
What's the difference between the context and the things?
Why is speak of a context necessary or relevant?
What's the difference between the ground rules and the things?

Completeness is given as a requirement for contextuals. (and you don't like reusing labels across contexts)

Completeness is a requirement for universes. These are the ‘fundamental units’, to sue your phrase. Things conceptually isolated from the universe are not complete since the context in which they make sense is missing. Labels are convenient tools but they are not concrete things. Re-use them as much as you want but do not confuse them with concrete reality.

Wouldn't things separate from the Universe be their own Universes and provide their own context? Doesn't one "go with the other"? Isn't "separate from a Universe" incoherent?

There is a person named Mary in New York City.
There is a person named Mary in Paris.
Therefore Mary lives in both New York City and Paris.

NOT a good syllogism.

A Mary lives in both New York City and Paris.

If I believed in a multiverse, I'd believe in an Ancient of Years that doesn't.

How about the cat that scratched the woman’s face and the cat that did not? Not the same cat.

Both cats, in some context you might call them the same cat. Identity is not simple.

Logic doesn't require things to have further explanations.

We might as well have stuck with Aristotle’s idea that smoke rises because it belongs up there. The question arose as to why it belongs up there. Much better explanations came along because people looked for them.

Logic certainly doesn't require things to have further explanations, or any explanations at all. I sincerely hope we didn't lose that system purely because someone questioned "Why does it rise?" when there are much better objections.

"Why" implies a lot of things useless in many situations. You can ask "Why doesn't smoke rise?" too. (Related to the quote from Morgenbesser, i.e. "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining".)

Syllogisms start with arbitrary propositions.

P1: All men are named Harry.
P2: The bus driver is a man.
C: The bus driver is named Harry.

Perfectly logical but not reasonable. In reality not all men are named Harry. We see that things have causes. It is unreasonable to stop the search for causes and say that there is no cause beyond arbitrary point X, so stop looking.

Sound but not valid. "Why" is neither necessary nor sufficient to point that out. (Well, maybe "Why should I believe that?" - but there's a clear agent, and can be a matter of purpose, and is not comparable to "Why is that the case?")

Why are all men named Harry? Because remembering multiple names is harder.

Requiring causes is a further inconsistency. "Things have causes" - what stops me saying "No, causes have things"? Better yet, stop requiring things to be explained in terms of cause at all. Cause isn't always a useful and applicable concept.

There is a big difference between "It exists because it can" and "It can exist because it does". The first addresses the question of why it exists. The second does not. If it exists then obviously it can. No new information. No explanation, And it still leaves the question: Why does it exist in the first place?

How does the alternative provide a better explanation, or more information? Why would that matter for the truth of the statement? Do you have an explanation as to why things can be?

In fact, "It is therefore it can be" is still required - it's just that it's considered a trivially true statement. It already added information.

Why those values?

Why those values for the Universe we're in?

Because they are possible and account exactly for our existence. Your question seems to be assuming that “we� represents something other than our existence as part of this universe. Why do you live where you live and not someplace else? Because all of the events that influenced where you live resulted in you living where you do. You are in this universe because all the events that led up to you existing are events in this universe.

What part of that requires a multiverse?

That things could be different according to the general consensus of physicists who address the question.

But not on grounds of physics or evidence. Just intuition and personal sense. There's no logical requirement for any of what you said to require a multiverse.

3) That this is the only possible universe, in the sense of possible physics, and it exists because it can. This is my proposal with the additional assumption that no other universes are possible. This is contrary to what physicists in general hold to be the case.

I meant a non-multiverse. (In fact, you've just highlighted how contextual 'possible' is for your multiverse.. and how you can literally say "it isn't in my multiverse, so it isn't possible", short of some standards for possibility)

The label ‘cat’ is a matter of convenience and convention. Likewise ‘horse’. In the end the convention will break down. Whether an entity not composed of atoms can be labeled ‘horse’ is a matter of opinion and intent. If one says that it looks like a horse and should be called a horse that is fine. If one wants to talk about its chemical composition, which depends on atoms, then it is not a horse. Convenience and convention. But in the end this ‘horse’ is an arbitrarily labeled abstraction from the universe it resides in. In reality, it does not exist as a discrete entity.

How does this matter? At all? Should we stop using nouns?

Nobody deals in true discrete entities. Not ever - we can't even know what counts as a discrete entity. Rarely does anyone deal in something "ultimately concrete" - you can almost always always take something "concrete", and add extra variance or context.

What it the maximum Kolmogorov complexity of a text box? Or is there no halting condition?

It was more along the lines of the difficulty of long posts. I may as well be typing this on a smartphone.

It was a joke. But what I do is Quote and a copy/paste into Word. Much easier than doing it all in the text box. Then paste back and preview.

I generally don't like working in a different window, it'd just be nice to have a more space-efficient text box. Not exactly expecting IDE-style syntax highlighting and formatting (but for bbcode, that might be a good thing).

[Ancient of Years]

First how can one logically determine what is possible beyond what is observed or measured. Although I agree that what is possible is but we can have no way to know what is entirely possible or even impossible so therefore possibilities is a abstraction and not of reality in a metaphysical terms.

I agree everything can be is but not necessarily that there are or are not other possibilities. This is outside what is and therefore is not real beyond imagination. We can only deduce from what is not what may be. Since what is, is it therefore coherent, consistent, but not necessarily complete, this to is of the same abstraction. We are able to find coherency and consistency from things that are not complete quite readily. I would use one such example as DNA with it's double helix structure will never be complete(closed).As per applied to the macro scale completeness seams present yet we know this is not true when applied to forces, ie: dark energy & dark matter to name a couple.

I do not have to determine what is possible. Reality takes care of that. What is impossible is ‘something’ that is incoherent (not a thing after all), inconsistent (self-contradictory) or incomplete (having insufficient explanation). That which is coherent, consistent and complete is possible. My proposal is that existence is simply being possible. Entities within a universe can be coherent and consistent. But only entire universes can be complete, being the full blown embodiments of possible configurations of ground rules.

Exactly my point reality determines what is possible not us saying there are possibilities so we cannot assume there are possibilities beyond those already produced. I agree that existence is because of possibilities but not than any other existence is possible since this one is and overrides others by being. Being possible means nothing if not actually being. So to say there are other possibilities to existence but this possibility is excludes others at this moment.

I am not saying that I know in detail what other universes might be like. A deeper understanding of how this universe works might give a clue to that. My argument is metaphysical, literally beyond physics. It starts from first principles – why is there anything and why is it like this? – and ends in the conclusion that what is possible to exist does exist. This ‘higgledy-piggledy of a place’, as Bertrand Russell put it, becomes more understandable as one possible universe out of many. Why is the fine structure constant 7.2973525698×10^(−3) ? Why is there a fine-structure constant at all? I do not need to know exactly what else is possible if my argument leads to the nature of existence as simply being possible.

My proposal is that all possible universes exist. If it were the case that this universe is the only possible universe (a real long shot) this would not contradict my proposal. And my proposal would account for the existence of this universe by virtue of this universe being possible.

One always needs to consider uncertainty and if all possibilities existed there would be no more possibilities, this is not reality, since all things vary in this existence. If we want to apply a multi verse perspective they cannot due to reality of uncertainty all be of existence at once. Are you implying that all realities are overlaid and change and variation are illusions of these other realities overlaid onto ours? or is this Multi-Verse independent of one another with no interaction?

In my proposal different universes each exist in their own domain. There is no overlaying. By definition what I am calling a universe is totally discrete from all other universes. There may be universes like the eternal inflation scenario where multiple space-times arise from a background ‘sea’. But as I have previously pointed this background must necessarily have ground rules that allow inflation to happen. For example, current thinking envisages an ‘inflaton’ scalar field having a familiar quantized structure.

There is undoubtedly more to learn about how this universe works. Yet no matter how simple a ToE might eventually appear, the thought that it would have NO arbitrary elements is a difficult one.

If for example this hypothetical ToE had 3 open spatial dimensions, 6 rolled up dimensions and 1 time dimension it would have to somehow explain why 3-6-1 is the only possible configuration. Not just that it is the only possible explanation for what we see. It would be circular reasoning to say that was the end of the road from the point of view of metaphysics. For this to be the only possible universe, the ToE would have to be the only possible consistent physical theory, period, with all other candidates being internally inconsistent, regardless of agreement or not with observations made in this universe. Another internally consistent theory could describe another existing universe.

Well, hmm first a ToE does not have to encompass possible universes nor realities only what made this one possible. There is nothing that says it has to show what would make another universe possible only that since this possibility is than therefor it is possible beyond just being. This is not the only possible universe but it is the only one we have to be in or even anything we know to be of. Why would it not consist of other explainable universes since uncertainty from knowing any causal effect outside what this reality stems from(it's own cause) there is no way to know. We exist here in this reality and so do all observations therefor we can only now what make this one possible.

A single ToE would apply only to a given universe. My point is that a ToE for this universe is certainly going to involve specific laws, constants, values etc. that will have no justification for being put into the theory other than that they are observed. Why that ToE? My answer is that all possible ToE’s are realized in some universe so no surprise that this one is.

There are 19 physical constants that have been quantified by observation and are plugged into the various theories by hand. As far as we now know their values are independent of each other. Future research might show that some of the constants are not independent but different aspects of something more fundamental. But to think that all 19 of these quite arbitrary seeming numeric values could somehow be reduced to zero numeric values put in by hand and still explain what we observe does not strike me as a reasonable expectation.

Agree uncertainty is the imperative to causation that is why only one possible universe or a multi-verse of all possibilities existing independently do not take such into account. You can still have possibilities as a precursor for existence and still have only one possibility at a time. Is this also not a fundamental aspect of being and not just a possibility, it actually is but doesn't dictate no others. The only truth is what made this possibility happen not others, and that does not say others are not possible in any way just that they didn't since this possibility occurred.

If I toss a coin and it comes up heads, that does not mean that there cannot be another coin that came up tails. This ‘coin’ (universe) came up the way it did because it is the actualization of one possibility. In my proposal all possibilities are actualized. The reason there is a fine structure constant and it has a value of 7.2973525698×10^(−3) is that this is a feature of the ‘ground rules’ of this universe. But to say that having a fine structure constant and having it equal to 7.2973525698×10^(−3) is somehow inherent in the nature of existence thereby rendering all alternatives impossible does not strike me as a credible notion. Neither does it explain why anything exists at all. My proposal explains both. Existence is simply being possible and a universe having that kind of constant and value is possible. That is why this universe both is and is the way it is. Ditto all other possible universes.

I will defer addressing your physical theories until such time as you may have the ‘much much more’ you mentioned to add to the present ‘tidbits’.

Still deferring comment, in this case on your update. I am trying to keep up with several complex threads here and that pesky RL as well, and I need to think in depth about what you are saying.

[Ancient of Years]

I cut the post way back to avoid running into a possible size limit – as I actually did in another thread. Hopefully the thrust of the conversation has been preserved.

For apples, all that's been done is you've said a specific apple might be more specific than a specific empty box - which may be true, but that doesn't mean apples in a box are more specific than empty boxes, or that the configuration of an empty box in general is less specific than any apple-entailing configuration. I could argue that by meaning a given apple, you don't just mean the apple-ness of it, but every detail it could possibly have (as opposed to properties all conceptual (and real) apples could have). That extra required specification is why "an apple in a box" isn't more specific than "an empty box" - because it stops being "an apple in a box" and becomes "this apple in a box", or "a red apple in a box", "a lone apple in a box", etc.

In reality there is no ‘in general’. There is only the particular. A particular apple is specific in that its configuration could be distinguished from any other configuration by sufficient specification. The generic ‘an apple’ exists only as a convenient abstraction, not in the real world. It is always ‘this apple’ that exists. Of course delineating that apple from the universe it is part of is also a matter of convenience but at least it is a really existing apple one is delineating.

We're talking about boxes with apples and boxes with no apples, and which is more specific. Whether they're "abstract or not" is of little concern. Whether or not they're abstract would itself vary between your multiverse's universes.

Any noun not prefixed by "a given", or specified with size and position/orientation in space and time (or similar) is vague and "abstract". If a box with apples doesn't count as a thing, neither does an apple.

A particular box with apples is real even if the labeling is an artificial delineation. The generic ‘box with apples’ is not real.

In physical reality, pretty much everything is unique. The generic empty box does not exist in reality. If, in physical reality, only one box with apples in existed but two empty boxes did, then you could just as easily say "a box with apples is more specific in reality". If that was the point, I'm sure someone out there could do the maths on how many empty boxes there are (I'd assume mostly box making and logistics companies) and how many boxes of apples there are. A few hundred years ago, I'm certain there would have been more boxes with apples in than empty boxes (an empty box is typically in disuse) - but I didn't think that's what we were arguing about.

Regardless, doesn't your idea of physical reality involve logical possibility and context?

The possible exists. That is reality. The way I am using the word ‘context’ is to refer to the existence of a particular coherent consistent complete possibility – a universe.

Indefinite “something� does not describe reality. Nothing is not a thing. It is not at all specific because it does not exist. The idea of being specific is that is distinguishable from other specifics.

The idea of a concept or configuration being specific is how distinguishable it is from other concepts or configurations. It doesn't matter whether or not they're instantiated or otherwise represented in reality. The idea of a given thing being specific is that its distinguishable from similar things.

"A pink, 80-foot tall elephant doesn't exist, therefore a pink, 80-foot tall elephant isn't specific... while an elephant might be, as it does exist" is plainly not valid.

Specification is description. Since it does not exist (we are assuming) ‘pink 80-foot tall elephant’ is all there can be to the specification, unless one arbitrarily makes up more attributes. If there were indeed pink 80-foot tall elephants (genetic engineering?) one could add specifications from observation that would allow distinguishing n such creature from another. Male/female, length of trunk, age, skin thickness, weight, standing in my driveway and so on. Saying ‘pink 80-foot tall elephant’ is not very specific at all. Even if no listing of specifications were actually made, a really existing pink 80-foot tall elephant would still really exist. As a particular semi-stable temporary configuration in the universal dance of course.

If absolute nothing is the case the idea of being distinguished from something else is meaningless.

The configuration itself would plausibly be ultimately specific. It would be distinguishable from other possible (in any of the contexts of the word) configurations. As would everything.

If absolute nothing were the case there would not be anything to distinguish it from. Specification is a description of attributes to distinguish the particular from other particulars. Absolute nothing is not a particular nothing. It is no thing at all. Calling ‘it’ specific is calling ‘it’ a thing.

If everything possible exists, the entre ensemble of ‘everything’ also cannot be distinguished from anything else because by definition there is no other thing that it can be distinguished from.

If I own one box, "my box" is specific - precisely because I don't have other boxes. (And of course there's the fact you can distinguish between a configuration of everything, one of nothing and one of some things.)

I fail to see the relevance of the box. Your box can be distinguished from all other boxes. But the ensemble of all possible boxes cannot be distinguished from another different ensemble of all possible boxes. There is no other ensemble of all possible boxes.

We know that absolute nothing is not the case. At least one something exists that is very specific – this universe. It is specific in that it can be described in specific terms that might be described in other contradictory ways. Example: there is such a thing as the speed of light and it has a particular value.

Whether there actually are other universes with other values is not the point. It is that specific descriptions can be applied. If there were other different universes this one could be distinguished. Other ‘nothings’ and other ‘somethings’ do not make sense.

Since absolute nothing is not the case we can ask why that is so. My proposal is that existence is simply being possible. Things exist because they can. Since existence IS being possible, all possibilities exist. Simple as that.

We can also ask why everything exists, and we can ask why nothing exists.
They're both askable questions.

In a variety of contexts, other nothings and somethings make plenty of sense. "My box contains nothing, your box also contains nothing."

Absolute nothing is not the case, which is what I was talking about. You are using ‘nothing’ to refer to situationally dependent circumstances.

Your box contains nothing only with respect to some particular expectation, some sort of objects perhaps but without any preconceptions about what they might be. However if you were looking for apples and found a box containing a hammer but no apples you could still say that your search for apples turned up nothing. And of course the box contains the physical fields that are present in all space. ‘Nothing’ is a relative term.

In addition, to treat ‘no thing’ as ‘some thing’ is an error that can quickly lead to confusion. You have nothing in your box. I do not have a box. I used it for firewood. Do I have nothing? What happened to the nothing in the box when the box went away? However I have a bag of apples. Do I still have nothing?

The digital image could be a representation of something never observed. Dragons anyone? It could even be a representation of something that cannot be, as in M.C. Escher prints. Most definitely not real. Abstractions are not real things. Likewise labels.

So a photo isn't a concrete thing ..?

The photo is. The meaning assigned to the photograph is conceptual. It is not the Eiffel Tower. It is a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Or whatever.

Anything that would result from a possible configuration of ground rules exists in some universe. Consider my apple example above. It may be possible for some universe where physics is much more granular for some entity to be entirely describable by what we could recognize as a list of specifications. What is an abstraction in one universe, a non-exhaustive description, might correspond to a description that is exhaustive in another universe. But the entity in the other universe is not itself an abstraction. It is a real physical entity in accordance with whatever laws of physics apply to it. The correspondence between the ‘this-universe’ abstraction and the ‘that-universe’ entity would be coincidental, a result of all possible universes being realized and of the process by which the abstraction was made.

"A given thing" is never unspecific in its context. How do you tell that the context is specific and concrete?
It's just as easily arguable that objects themselves are abstractions.
Though this tangent doesn't really matter much for the topic any more.

On the contrary it is entirely relevant. We have abstractions in our minds that we associate with configurations in the real world. We call them objects. In reality there is no real delineation between the configuration that we call an object and the universe at large. But putting labels on configurations is a handy thing to do and so we do it. The object that we have in our minds is an abstraction. It is not the actual reality. The ‘object’ (semi-stable temporary configuration in the universal dance) that we point to with this abstraction is real. So it depends on exactly what you mean.

[...]As usual there is also the issue of the conventions by which the entity being partially described in this-universe and the entry being fully described in that-universe are identified as separate from their respective universes for the purpose of description. So the entity is not an instantiation of an abstraction. The entity is physically real, a configuration within the overall context of the universe. The abstraction is not real.

I don't see how this follows.
Why isn't the entity an instantiation of an abstraction?

The abstraction is just that – an abstract that is less detailed than the reality. This is the power of abstraction, that we can blur distinctions and look for commonalities. For the reality to be an instantiation of the abstraction would require the abstraction to account for the details of the reality. It is exactly in the nature of abstractions to not do that. In addition, for a realty to be an instantiation of an abstraction would require the abstraction to account for the existence of the reality. Unless you want to argue for a Platonic realm of Ideal Forms actually existing in a real sense, that is clearly not the case. And finally a reality might be considered the instantiation of many different abstractions: apple, fruit, red thing, disease vector, paperweight. Which is the real source of the instantiation of this real entity? This points out the artificiality of the instantiation concept.

A physical multiverse would imply following some particular laws of physics. That is contrary to the reasoning that leads to the multiverse, that what is possible exists, that existence is exactly being possible. An ‘eternal inflation’ type of physical multiverse, for example, would need to have physical laws that allowed inflation. That would require inflation to be an inherent property of what it means to exist. A whopping big assumption there. In addition, inflation involves specific parameters that determine how inflation operates. Where did those specific parameters come from? The other types of physical multiverses all have similar problems, requiring some form of pre-existing physics to explain everything else.

I am not concerned with how other people use the label ‘multiverse’. I have explained clearly how I am using it. And it is not physical.

What makes you think other physical laws are possible?
The line between logical and physical possibility is nearly as blurry as the meaning of the word possible itself.

The laws of this universe as presently formulated involve four fundamental forces that are quite different in domain and activity, a plethora of particles that they act on (some of them) and 19 parameters with arbitrary seeming numeric values that are heuristically determined. To say that in reality there is a one and only possible set of ground rules (a Theory of Everything) that would account for everything we observe but without requiring any observation of the universe to establish its exact structure and numeric parameters is not a reasonable expectation. But if that somehow is the case, it still would not account for the existence of the ground rules in the first place.

But of course my proposal does not depend on physics. It requires only the idea that existence is simply being possible. Consideration of the nature of the universe (as above) strongly suggests that it is not the only possible universe. If amazingly this is the only possible universe its existence still needs to be accounted for.

I can't think of anything that can't in concept be mathematically or programmatically described, but then I'm mathematically and programmatically describable.

Another possibly interesting tangent: there'll be lower data complexity in writing a program to output all of the prime numbers than some specific arbitrarily large prime number.

Mathematically describable and programmatically describable are not the same thing. The set of numbers on the real number line that cannot be computed is infinitely larger than the set of computable numbers. In the real world (pun intended) while a set of equations might be set up to describe a situation they will almost always be non-linear and in the general case cannot be solved directly, approximation via linear equations being needed. Is it reasonable to say that such situations are mathematically describable if the description does not yield any results?

Since the type of programs involved in Kolmogorov complexity are allowed to take input, that input could simply be the desired output. That program would be ultra- simple. If reading an input is excluded and arbitrarily large is defined as requiring more bits to express it than a program that can calculate and output all prime numbers (and why not?) then your statement holds.

Existential Imperative

It is not improbable in the literal sense of the word (probability of 1), nor do I believe it improbable in any other sense - you can always ask a similar question, even in a multiverse (i.e. "Why is this Universe the way it is?"). It's not even evident that there are reasonable grounds for assuming other possibilities.

A given universe is the way it is because it is possible and all possible universes are realized. Shuffle a deck of cards. Look at the top card. Why is that card the top card? No matter what card was on top you would want to ask that question. Some card had to be. An observer of a universe is by definition part of that universe. In a universe that produces observers, those observers will observe that universe. Why is this mysterious? Why is this universe this universe and not another universe? Why are you you and not somebody else? The question makes no sense.

I'm not saying it does matter, only that if it does then it matters for a multiverse as much as a single-possible universe.

I am not following you. Why should it be mysterious for an observer that is in a certain universe to observe the universe that it is in?

You seem adamant on making me choose between discussing a multiverse and employing natural language.

She (Generic) is C.
She (Universe A) is A.
She (Universe B) is B.

A is an instance of C,
B is an instance of C,
A is not an instance of B.

It would take a long time to discuss the exact details of how we establish identity or other things in given contexts, i.e. what 'that bus' actually means (the physical vehicle? the scheduled arrival on this particular route? both? etc), but it's certainly meaningful and consistent to say they're both her. It's certainly the natural use of language.

The ‘She (Generic)’ that you label C is an abstraction and not a real thing. You are calling A an instance of C but that is merely a convention, a way of saying that A is a thing labeled ‘Mary’. Likewise B. Using another convention D (brunettes) A might satisfy that convention and B might not. But in the end A is A and B is B and neither of them is C or D. A and B might have similarities in some descriptive system but that system will only be a convention not a reality.

Natural language is a matter of convenience for human affairs. It is not a good tool for describing actual reality.

Why does it matter how abstract it is? Isn't balance "abstract" anyway?
Why the opposition to everything that appears abstract?

What is abstract is not real. Abstraction is a convenient toll. But the abstraction is not the reality.

The speed of light is part of the ground rules of the universe (possibly fundamental, possibly derived from other fundamentals). It could be that in another universe there is a parameter that could reasonably be called ‘speed of light’ but has a different value. But it is not the same speed of light. It could be that in another universe there is an entity very similar to me. But if that entity gets hit by a bus I do not get a broken leg. That other entity is not me.

Is there a difference between "the ground rules" and what is?

You seem to be using personal identity again. I suppose I should say "'me' is an abstraction".

This apple will never be that apple, except that this apple then could be that apple now. Regardless of the confusing semantics, they're both apples.

THIS apple is not THAT apple and never will be. Period. Calling them apples is an abstraction, a convention for applying labels to semi-stable temporary configurations as if they were discrete entities. They are both apples because we call them apples. We could call one a Macintosh and another a Granny and nothing in the apples would change.

As I pointed out above, the term ‘cat’ is a convention. If one looks at the possible spread of entities in different universes that might be labeled ‘cat’ the convention will eventually break down and become ambiguous. The same could be said of the ancestry of a given cat. Somewhere back in the genetic line there will be an ancestor that cannot reasonably be called a cat. Where in between then and now did ‘cats’ start? A matter of convention.

A lot of language is ambiguous. It often doesn't mean change languages.

It is the label that is ambiguous because it is used for convenience and is therefore intentionally imprecise. But do not mistake the label for the reality.

What About Parsimony?

"Complete in themselves" is indistinguishable from "not complete". But what it's called doesn't matter.

Is 'Universes' just what all internally complete things are called?
How do we know that things within a Universe may not be internally complete?
How do we know that everything isn't internally complete?

Earth-like donkeys (remember those donkeys? ) require air and food to exist. No air? No food? No donkeys. The hypothesized universe consisting entirely of earth-like donkeys is not complete. It has aspects that require the presence of something that is in fact absent. The hypothesized donkeys are not complete in themselves. Since the hypothesized universe is to consist entirely of earth-like donkeys it is not complete and therefore does not exist.

How's such a Universe incomplete? When you say require, you mean they'll die (or similar) if they don't get it. Dying isn't incomplete, is it?

If they required it in the sense that it was necessary to be an earth-like donkey, e.g. a donkey-like body, it'd be a part of the Universe through the donkeys.

Earth-like donkeys do not include the air, food and water that they require. Those are external to the donkeys. In a universe consisting entirely of earth-like donkeys those external requirements would not be present. A requirement implied by the description is excluded by that same description. Such a universe would be incomplete and therefore non-existent. And let us not forget that the original description was talking donkeys – obviously not dead.

The original intent of this example was to show that not everything that can be imagined can be real.

Only whole universes can be complete, being the embodiment of possible configurations of ground rules. If things within a universe were complete in themselves they would not be the result of the ground rules of that universe and therefore not part of that universe. If they were the product of the ground rules they would not be complete in themselves but dependent on the ground rules for their specific nature. Only universes can be complete.

How do you distinguish between the ground rules and the things?
Universes are allegedly complete in themselves. Something can be complete in two contexts. Why can't a subset of a Universe be partially complete in itself, and partially complete in the Universe?

The ‘things’ as you put it are arbitrarily delineated configurations within the universe. The only complete thing is the universe itself. And that is the embodiment of the ground rules. There is no distinction between the ground rules and the universe.

Partially complete is incomplete. Arbitrarily delineated portions of a universe are incomplete. I do not understand your question.

What's the difference between a context and a Universe?

My other point is no longer relevant, as you've already gone one of two ways to which I referred. (I.e. that there is no general context for Universes/they are "incomplete"/"internally complete").

There is no overall physical context for all the universes, since that would be a contradiction. The reason all the universes exist is that they can, that existence is simply being possible. That is my proposal. You keep trying to insert a middleman. The entire point of the proposal is that no middlemen are needed.

The context of a universe is the unique configuration of ground rules from which the universe arises. Since the universe is exactly the result of the ground rules there is really no distinction. One goes with the other.

But one isn't the other.
Completeness is a requirement, completeness-ing isn't.
What's the difference between the context and the things?
Why is speak of a context necessary or relevant?
What's the difference between the ground rules and the things?

But one isn't the other.
On the contrary, the ground rules and the universe are one and the same. You are thinking of the ground rules as a blueprint that maybe some architect uses to build a universe. Not the case. The universe is the embodiment of the ground rules. The ground rules are the way the universe works. The ground rules / universe is the expression of one coherent consistent complete possibility. Considering that those constitute the definition of existence why should it be a surprise that a universe would necessarily embody rules that express coherency (being a definite something) consistency (not being something it is not) and completeness (no unexplained aspects) ?

Completeness is a requirement, completeness-ing isn't.
Sorry but I have no idea what that means.

Why is speaking of a context necessary or relevant?
I am using term ‘context’ to refer to the uniqueness of each universe. Something that might be possible in one context might not be possible in another context. Earlier I mentioned that there might be planets in this universe where animals resembling earth-like pigs to a reasonable extent might be able to fly. (Although I am sure that an autopsy would turn up considerable differences.) That is an example of different environments. Extend that idea to different universes and use the word context in place of environment.

What's the difference between the ground rules and the things?
There is no difference between the ground rules and the universe. The ‘things’ are in reality not separate from the universe, although they might be conceptually isolated for the sake of convenience.

Completeness is given as a requirement for contextuals. (and you don't like reusing labels across contexts)

Completeness is a requirement for universes. These are the ‘fundamental units’, to use your phrase. Things conceptually isolated from the universe are not complete since the context in which they make sense is missing. Labels are convenient tools but they are not concrete things. Re-use them as much as you want but do not confuse them with concrete reality.

Wouldn't things separate from the Universe be their own Universes and provide their own context? Doesn't one "go with the other"? Isn't "separate from a Universe" incoherent?

You seem to have missed the word ‘conceptually’ highlighted above. Please re-read what I said.

There is a person named Mary in New York City.
There is a person named Mary in Paris.
Therefore Mary lives in both New York City and Paris.

NOT a good syllogism.

A Mary lives in both New York City and Paris.

If I believed in a multiverse, I'd believe in an Ancient of Years that doesn't.

How about the cat that scratched the woman’s face and the cat that did not? Not the same cat.

Both cats, in some context you might call them the same cat. Identity is not simple.

Different cats are not the same cat. Identity is certainly simple enough to understand that. Or is ‘A is not not-A’ that hard?

Logic doesn't require things to have further explanations.

We might as well have stuck with Aristotle’s idea that smoke rises because it belongs up there. The question arose as to why it belongs up there. Much better explanations came along because people looked for them.

Logic certainly doesn't require things to have further explanations, or any explanations at all. I sincerely hope we didn't lose that system purely because someone questioned "Why does it rise?" when there are much better objections.

"Why" implies a lot of things useless in many situations. You can ask "Why doesn't smoke rise?" too. (Related to the quote from Morgenbesser, i.e. "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining".)

This is the Philosophy forum and this thread is explicitly about metaphysics and as such asking why things are and why they are what they are is a perfectly legitimate question. "Why doesn't smoke rise?" is an irrelevant question because it assumes a situation that does not exist. Something does exist. Why does it exist? Why that something? Logic is a tool we can use to find answers to questions. The questions exist. Logic can be used to address them.

(And I already discussed at length way back why Morgenbesser is irrelevant.)

Syllogisms start with arbitrary propositions.

P1: All men are named Harry.
P2: The bus driver is a man.
C: The bus driver is named Harry.

Perfectly logical but not reasonable. In reality not all men are named Harry. We see that things have causes. It is unreasonable to stop the search for causes and say that there is no cause beyond arbitrary point X, so stop looking.

Sound but not valid. "Why" is neither necessary nor sufficient to point that out. (Well, maybe "Why should I believe that?" - but there's a clear agent, and can be a matter of purpose, and is not comparable to "Why is that the case?")

Why are all men named Harry? Because remembering multiple names is harder.

Requiring causes is a further inconsistency. "Things have causes" - what stops me saying "No, causes have things"? Better yet, stop requiring things to be explained in terms of cause at all. Cause isn't always a useful and applicable concept.

Have you actually reached the stage where to argue against me you need to deny the existence of causal relationships?

There is a big difference between "It exists because it can" and "It can exist because it does". The first addresses the question of why it exists. The second does not. If it exists then obviously it can. No new information. No explanation, And it still leaves the question: Why does it exist in the first place?

How does the alternative provide a better explanation, or more information? Why would that matter for the truth of the statement? Do you have an explanation as to why things can be?

In fact, "It is therefore it can be" is still required - it's just that it's considered a trivially true statement. It already added information.

The proposal is that being possible (in the same sense I have detailed repeatedly) IS existence. This is an alternative to the usual presumption of ‘nothing’ being primordial. It explains why things are – they are possible - and why we see what we see – one example of a possible universe. That IS the explanation.

‘Can be’ and ‘Is’ are identical. Nothing else is required.

Why those values?

Why those values for the Universe we're in?

Because they are possible and account exactly for our existence. Your question seems to be assuming that “we� represents something other than our existence as part of this universe. Why do you live where you live and not someplace else? Because all of the events that influenced where you live resulted in you living where you do. You are in this universe because all the events that led up to you existing are events in this universe.

What part of that requires a multiverse?

That things could be different according to the general consensus of physicists who address the question.

But not on grounds of physics or evidence. Just intuition and personal sense. There's no logical requirement for any of what you said to require a multiverse.

Once more, ‘multiverse’ is shorthand for all possible universes being realized. The idea follows from possibility and existence being the same thing and more than one mode of existence being possible. The first is the proposal. The second is a reasonable extrapolation from the unexplained idiosyncrasy of this universe. If this is somehow the only possible universe (a huge leap of faith) the argument still stands and explains why the universe exists at all. Of course there will not be physical evidence. Each universe is the embodiment of a different way to exist and is necessarily totally discrete from all other universes. The argument is metaphysical, not physical.

3) That this is the only possible universe, in the sense of possible physics, and it exists because it can. This is my proposal with the additional assumption that no other universes are possible. This is contrary to what physicists in general hold to be the case.

I meant a non-multiverse. (In fact, you've just highlighted how contextual 'possible' is for your multiverse.. and how you can literally say "it isn't in my multiverse, so it isn't possible", short of some standards for possibility)

You are turning it around. If it is not possible it does not exist. What is possible is what is coherent (being definite), consistent (being not self-contradictory) and complete (not requiring anything unexplained). Those are the standards for being possible. I explained all of that right at the beginning. The proposal is that what is possible exists, that existence IS being possible.

The label ‘cat’ is a matter of convenience and convention. Likewise ‘horse’. In the end the convention will break down. Whether an entity not composed of atoms can be labeled ‘horse’ is a matter of opinion and intent. If one says that it looks like a horse and should be called a horse that is fine. If one wants to talk about its chemical composition, which depends on atoms, then it is not a horse. Convenience and convention. But in the end this ‘horse’ is an arbitrarily labeled abstraction from the universe it resides in. In reality, it does not exist as a discrete entity.

How does this matter? At all? Should we stop using nouns?

Nobody deals in true discrete entities. Not ever - we can't even know what counts as a discrete entity. Rarely does anyone deal in something "ultimately concrete" - you can almost always always take something "concrete", and add extra variance or context.

For everyday life of course we use abstractions, labels and other convenient tools. But that is what they are: conveniences. We are dealing with metaphysics in this thread and the topic is ultimate reality. It is necessary to understand the limitations of those conveniences in that arena. There is no such thing as a ‘true’ discrete entity because what we apply that kind of label to is in fact not a discrete entity in itself but a semi-stable temporary configuration in the dance of the universe that we find it convenient to slap a label on.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 53 by Ancient of Years]

Complex numbers are useful for dealing with multiple variables. But the actual physical processes are not directly represented by the complex number. Impedance is not a single physical thing by itself. It is the overlapping effects of resistance, inductance and capacitance on current flow, each representing a real physical process. Impedance is a convenient tool but it is not a real thing in itself.

Agree, yet I see this differently, impedance is more than a tool since we can apply our abstracts and it works. Impedance is more than just a tool, it is quite precise as I am sure you already know. The words we use are abstracts but not the tool itself. To my personal view if something works it is real, I do not see values(numbers, amounts) and many words as abstracts since they actually work beyond a societal use but naturally occurring outside of a human existence.

Real entities referenced by set definitions certainly interact with other entities. So do other real entities that have not been designated as members of sets. But being designated as belonging to a set or not or being assigned to multiple sets has no effect whatsoever on the real entity. Sets do nothing that their members do not already do. Sets are imaginary. They are convenient fictions that do not exist in reality.

I am very definitely not pushing a Platonic type reality. Just the opposite: the Ideal Forms that are supposed to inhabit a Platonic realm are human inventions - approximations or convenient tools abstracted from the human perception of reality but not in fact existing in that reality. You did not misunderstand anything. My trying to talk about such far out subjects with little time for review is probably at fault.

Well I do not apply anthropomorphism's to most words, especially the word set. Nothing needs to be defined by an observer for it to be, this I entirely agree. Yet say an observers definition is not a convenient fiction but derived from reality not vice versa. Humans are not that special, we only discover definitions but do not create them. If the definition had not been then no observation would bring about anything.

Reality already defined the sets, and ect.. does not matter what abstract(word) we apply, things group together, interact, and transition, this is reality whether we defined it or not nor affected by what words are used.

It is the subject matter that distinguishes the three. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Phenomenology is the study of experience. Metaphysics is the study of being. Metaphysics is not devoid of human knowledge any more than automotive engineering is. But automotive engineering is not about knowledge. Neither is metaphysics. If that was not clear from what I said chalk it up to poor phrasing on my part.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

Just one quick one. Metaphysics is a strange dog and in my opinion very personal opinionated. I mean that often in such talks of metaphysics and philosophy, what is accepted as reality and abstract differ from person to person. Many claim reality based yet often think human words as abstracts they are in most cases are not. Meaning brings about the creation of the word not the word itself. Majority of words are not actually abstracts since all have meaning in reality beyond characters used to communicate the reality observed. So I see this for our difference in opinion on sets being real.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 56 by Ancient of Years]

I am not saying that I know in detail what other universes might be like. A deeper understanding of how this universe works might give a clue to that. My argument is metaphysical, literally beyond physics. It starts from first principles – why is there anything and why is it like this? – and ends in the conclusion that what is possible to exist does exist. This ‘higgledy-piggledy of a place’, as Bertrand Russell put it, becomes more understandable as one possible universe out of many. Why is the fine structure constant 7.2973525698×10^(−3) ? Why is there a fine-structure constant at all? I do not need to know exactly what else is possible if my argument leads to the nature of existence as simply being possible.

I do see what you are saying, just don't agree entirely. I state as such, What exists is possible, or it would't exist. That is were logic stops in my opinion, anything beyond that is speculative to me.

As for "why is there anything and why like this?", because it can be, why, since there has always been something. It is like this because it is this possibility, and does not mean another possibility occurred but also does not mean others did not happen as well. There just is no need for other possibilities to exist, for this one to exist, just that others are possible but not that they occurred.

Agree do not need to know exactly what other possibilities are like nor that they even occurred as long as they are possible.

Like most dimensionless constants it varied(some say still is), which allows possibilities ect...

A single ToE would apply only to a given universe. My point is that a ToE for this universe is certainly going to involve specific laws, constants, values etc. that will have no justification for being put into the theory other than that they are observed. Why that ToE? My answer is that all possible ToE’s are realized in some universe so no surprise that this one is.

Yes and well I do not see why any other possibilities need to be realized, just that they are possible, is absolutely adequate.

If I toss a coin and it comes up heads, that does not mean that there cannot be another coin that came up tails. This ‘coin’ (universe) came up the way it did because it is the actualization of one possibility. In my proposal all possibilities are actualized. The reason there is a fine structure constant and it has a value of 7.2973525698×10^(−3) is that this is a feature of the ‘ground rules’ of this universe. But to say that having a fine structure constant and having it equal to 7.2973525698×10^(−3) is somehow inherent in the nature of existence thereby rendering all alternatives impossible does not strike me as a credible notion. Neither does it explain why anything exists at all. My proposal explains both. Existence is simply being possible and a universe having that kind of constant and value is possible. That is why this universe both is and is the way it is. Ditto all other possible universes.

True it does not mean another coin in alternative universe came up as another possibility, just saying there is no need for another to happen as long as it was possible to happen but does not need to be actualized by any means.

I do agree with the base "Existence is simply being possible and a universe having that kind of constant and value is possible." but differ on others being actualized. Yet must say it is not ruled out I just don't see the need. I could see other universes but not all possibilities actualized. Balance to existence is a facade/abstract all exist in imbalance(uncertainty), so if all possibilities existed there would be a balance and variation would be limited. There can be no balance, and therefore the multi-verse would be limited if at all.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 53 by Ancient of Years]

Complex numbers are useful for dealing with multiple variables. But the actual physical processes are not directly represented by the complex number. Impedance is not a single physical thing by itself. It is the overlapping effects of resistance, inductance and capacitance on current flow, each representing a real physical process. Impedance is a convenient tool but it is not a real thing in itself.

Agree, yet I see this differently, impedance is more than a tool since we can apply our abstracts and it works. Impedance is more than just a tool, it is quite precise as I am sure you already know. The words we use are abstracts but not the tool itself. To my personal view if something works it is real, I do not see values(numbers, amounts) and many words as abstracts since they actually work beyond a societal use but naturally occurring outside of a human existence.

Impedance is definitely an abstraction. It is the ratio of voltage to current and is already not itself a physical quantity. In DC circuits where the instantaneous voltage does not vary there is only resistance. Impedance takes into account how the circuit reacts to the varying voltage of AC. Because the waveforms (e.g., sine waves) of voltage and current get out of phase, an additional dimension is needed. DC resistance is already a one dimensional ratio. Impedance needs two dimensions, thus complex numbers. What really exist are current (electrons in motion) and voltage (force). Aside: current is actually the negative of amperage for historical reasons.

Electrons are real. The force they experience is real. Ratios like resistance or impedance allow predicting behavior but are not themselves real entities. They are tools. They are precise because in general circuits are designed to operate in ranges where the tools work, that is, where behavior is predictable. Circuits can often go non-linear – and the tools do not work anymore – when operated outside expected frequencies or voltages or for more than brief periods. Or sometimes non-linearity is just in the nature of the beast, like audio speakers.

Real entities referenced by set definitions certainly interact with other entities. So do other real entities that have not been designated as members of sets. But being designated as belonging to a set or not or being assigned to multiple sets has no effect whatsoever on the real entity. Sets do nothing that their members do not already do. Sets are imaginary. They are convenient fictions that do not exist in reality.

I am very definitely not pushing a Platonic type reality. Just the opposite: the Ideal Forms that are supposed to inhabit a Platonic realm are human inventions - approximations or convenient tools abstracted from the human perception of reality but not in fact existing in that reality. You did not misunderstand anything. My trying to talk about such far out subjects with little time for review is probably at fault.

Well I do not apply anthropomorphism's to most words, especially the word set. Nothing needs to be defined by an observer for it to be, this I entirely agree. Yet say an observers definition is not a convenient fiction but derived from reality not vice versa. Humans are not that special, we only discover definitions but do not create them. If the definition had not been then no observation would bring about anything.

Reality already defined the sets, and ect.. does not matter what abstract(word) we apply, things group together, interact, and transition, this is reality whether we defined it or not nor affected by what words are used.

Realty has not defined any sets. Sets are a convenient fiction whereby things that are not the same can be categorized by what they have in common, ignoring how they differ. Reality ignores nothing.

It is the subject matter that distinguishes the three. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Phenomenology is the study of experience. Metaphysics is the study of being. Metaphysics is not devoid of human knowledge any more than automotive engineering is. But automotive engineering is not about knowledge. Neither is metaphysics. If that was not clear from what I said chalk it up to poor phrasing on my part.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

I was talking about ‘old’ metaphysics. See the Stanford article.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

BTW this article explicitly separates epistemology from metaphysics.

Just one quick one. Metaphysics is a strange dog and in my opinion very personal opinionated. I mean that often in such talks of metaphysics and philosophy, what is accepted as reality and abstract differ from person to person. Many claim reality based yet often think human words as abstracts they are in most cases are not. Meaning brings about the creation of the word not the word itself. Majority of words are not actually abstracts since all have meaning in reality beyond characters used to communicate the reality observed. So I see this for our difference in opinion on sets being real.

A particular physical entity (already an abstraction from the complex dance of the universe) is pointed to by a word. Various entities might be conceptually grouped by some labeling scheme. Different notions of what the labeling scheme should be result in different groupings. The ‘entities’ themselves are unaffected. Sets are not real.