Introduction

In this chapter, I relate my experience of the following:

The Question

The answer is my existence, but what is the question? I frame the question in its simplest form: "How do I exist?". The "How did I come to exist?" form of the question already presumes things about "how" because it presumes a final cause in the form of an original event of "coming" that "did" happen. However, the question "How do I exist?" leads to an ontology (study of existence) that does not presume dogma, but instead orients thinking toward existence in its most general form.

The handy thing about ontology is that it can be approached scientifically in a media-independent way; that is to say that you can study it on any medium, no matter how simple, because it is about how media work in general. We think that it is mystical, when it is actually the opposite. It turns out that higher-level concepts are actually easier to demonstrate because they are easier to reproduce, for simpler patterns occur more often (my formulation of the principle known as "Occam's Razor").

Simple Examples

To demonstrate my understanding of existence, I express the principles of ontology within the simplest possible media.

Identity

A Simple Abstract Example: A Binary Plane

Consider the simple binary plane of 3 bits: 101. It has 3 positions and 3 values.

Binary Sequence 101
Position 1st 2nd 3rd
Value 1 0 1

In this first scenario, let's call the 1st position a, and the 3rd position b.

Equality Scenario
Labels a b
Position 1st 2nd 3rd
Value 1 0 1

At both the 1st and 3rd positions, the value is 1, so a is equal to b. However, they are not identical. If we instead call the 1st position both a and b then a is identical to b.

Identity Scenario
Labels a,
b
Position 1st 2nd 3rd
Value 1 0 1

That is to say that two objects are equal if they have the same value. That is easy. But more significantly, we can only call two objects identical if they have the same value and position.

A Simple Concrete Example: An Office

Now, to apply that kind of thinking to the physical world. Consider a simple office in which there are two chairs of the same type, sharing equal properties which define their shared type.

Chair type at 1st and 4th positions
Position 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Type Chair Table Space Chair Table
Instance 1st Chair 1st Table 1st Space 2nd Chair 2nd Table

One chair is called Chair A, and another is called Chair B. They have the same value because their properties are equal. However, they are not identical because they must be in two different positions.

Chair A equal but not identical to Chair B
Label Chair A Chair B
Position 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Type Chair Table Space Chair Table
Instance 1st Chair 1st Table 1st Space 2nd Chair 2nd Table

But if you call Chair A also Chair B, then they occupy the same position, and therefore are identical.

Chair A equal and identical to Chair B
Label Chair A,
Chair B
Position 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Type Chair Table Space Chair Table
Instance 1st Chair 1st Table 1st Space 2nd Chair 2nd Table

When a little bit of complexity is added, it is simple to see how classes and attributes work. Consider a Station type of instances that are members of the class Has One Station, defined by the following class hierarchy.

Class Has One Chair
Contains a single Chair type.
Class Has One Table
Contains a single Table type.
Class Has One Station
Is a member of both Has One Chair and Has One Table.

Of course, it is possible to define just a single class. Note that classes, like all equalities, are arbitrary labels.

Class Has One Station
Contains a single Chair type and a single Table type.

It is now a simple matter to label and enumerate stations within our example.

Station A equal but not identical to Station B
Label Station A Station B
Position 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Simple Type Chair Table Space Chair Table
Complex Type Station Station
Simple Instance 1st Chair 1st Table 1st Space 2nd Chair 2nd Table
Complex Instance 1st Station 2nd Station

Existence

This understanding of identity leads directly to the question of existence. At this point, it is already apparent that equalities are built around arbitrary labels, while identity is what is fundamental to an object. What is fundamental is the relationship of the object to its plane of existence — its environment, its conditions, its context. The formal declaration of whether something exists depends on the declaration of where it is to exist.

It is already clear that equalities are relative, but identity is also relative.

Station identity vs. Office identity
Label Station A Station B
Office Position 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Station Instance 1st Station 2nd Station
Station Position 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
Simple Type Chair Table Space Chair Table

Planes of existence also have an identity. Each station has its own identity, and is itself a plane of existence.

The Real vs. The Universal

The concepts of reality and the universe are often interchangable, but there seems to be a sublte difference. Reality, like existence, is relative. Remember, it is a condition: The Human Condition. Any plane in which I exist is part of my reality. That is why reality is often defined as the observable universe. My reality is part of the universe, the set of all planes of existence.

At this point, it may be put that the universe is not the set of all planes, but just all physical planes. To be an ontological term, physical planes would need to have different ontological properties than other planes. These properties would need to be falsifiable.

What I have presented is an ontology of abstract planes that is perfectly suitable as a natural theory, because it is falsifiable, and may be tested against any part of reality.

Eternal Recurrence

Although the concept of eternal recurrence is nonsensical to the Western mind, it is a well-established concept in Ancient and Eastern thought. It has also been proposed as a mathematical certainty based on probability. I also propose this, but I demonstrate it with falsifiable ontology.

My formulation of Occam's Razer is that simpler patterns occur more often. This is not a statement of probability, although it may be expressed in terms of probability. For example, there is an infinite number of whole-numbers, and an infinite number of even-numbers, but even-numbers occur half as often as whole-numbers. Probability is not needed to explain that, but it is a convenient way to express it.

The converse is that complex patterns occur less often. The concept of eternal recurrence is simply that, despite a lower frequency or probability of occurance, in the universe of all planes, complex things would still occur an infinite number of times because all things may be contained within an infinite number of planes.

Complex Examples

The Creation of The Universe

A question any ontology must answer is the semi-rhetorical question: What created the universe? To answer that, it must be explained:

  1. How any thing creates.
  2. How any universe exists.

This properly generalizes the question.

Creation

Creation is not an expression of existence nor identity, but of equality. Existence and identity are affected by the expressions of the equation. Creation occurs when the expression of an equation results in a new instance of a type.

In the context of creation, a plane of existence is known as a medium. For example, a canvas is a plane that is defined by how pigments are applied to it.