A tree, a diamond, a speck of sand, and so on are all dependent on the existence of matter, for they are physical things. Matter could exist without there being any stones or grass or water, but there could not be stones, grass, or water without material substance. This is as true of miniscule physical particles at the subatomic level as it is of the greatest nebulas and stars of the universe (or multiverse, if one exists). Regardless of what that matter consists of at any scale from macroscopic landscapes or mountains to the smallest of applicable quantum units, if there is such a thing as elementary particles at all, it always has in common with other matter that they are physical substances that occupy metaphysical space, which is itself nonphysical since there would still be empty space where matter could go if there was no cosmos at all.
The entirety of the universe with all of its constituent parts is contingent; it did not have to exist and it could cease to be at any time because there is no necessity in its continued existence. Yes, it has to exist right now in light of very particular truths [1], but it did not have to ever come into being at all. Both a cosmos of practically any scale and the total absence of a physical world are logically possible because they do not contradict logical axioms either way. With or without its presence, the laws of logic still exist. It is still true by self-necessity that some truths or ideas follow from others, because otherwise, it would follow from the laws of logic being false that any individual logical truth is false. It would still be intrinsically true that some things are inherently true, as the alternative would be that nothing is true, something that would itself be true. It would still be true that contradictions are impossible because if they were not, then they would exclude logical necessity from being true, so the truth of non-contradiction would still be true even if it was false.
Reason exists independently of the material world because it cannot not be true, which in turn necessitates that it cannot not exist. Thus, it is immaterial in nature because the natural world in all of its diverse forms is not something that exists because it could not be any other way. This is required by the fact that the laws of logic, including both axioms and what follows from them, transcends all else. If logic was immaterial, or even mental rather than mentally grasped, then it would not be true in itself. Material objects and environments do not exist because they have to. They exist because of preceding events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, which was directly or indirectly brought about by the uncaused cause. The uncaused cause, or God, could have not existed, and there would simply be no cosmos.
Logic is true in itself, and God and nature rely on it rather than the other way around. Neither of the other things or anything that depends on them could even be possible without being consistent with logical axioms. Nature is what many people stop at because they can see and feel it. In truth, it is something immaterial which is the very heart of reality, moreso than even God. Reason could only be immaterial if it does not depend on anything else. Being inherently true, it does exist in the real or hypothetical absence of all other things, physical or nonphysical. This is not self-evident like the simple truth of axioms, but it does follow from them and other things that follow from them. The immateriality of logic is of extreme significance because it is connected with that which could not be false. The universe is governed by reason in that nothing in it could violate axioms, yet it is not reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment