Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. I'm not even suggesting that the model-building methodology of physics is even in any way the "wrong"method because I'm buggered if I could think of a better way of doing it. All I'm saying is that it is contingent on the metaphysical viability of the models being being built on and if these models are suggesting that effects can precede their causes and that events can occur with no cause whatsoever then such models are bollocks and the a priori premises on which they are founded must be false. Unfortunately the methodology itself is inherently tautologous which means that even if the model being built on is bullshit this need not affect its epistemic utility and thus cannot provide a pointer to a better model. The Ptolemaic cosmology is still perfectly adequate for the prediction of solar and lunar eclipses, for example, even though its a priori assumption has been superseded.
On a strictly philosophical view through metaphysics, the initial question is whether we can assume an uncaused cause or an infinite one. Even in your own interpretation, you consider nature as self-evolving in this same meaning without necessarily recognizing this as meaning the same.
I suggested considering first the origins of the symbols for nothing, a something, and infinity because they hint at what our ancestors were likely trying to associate these metaphysical ideas in a pictatorial representation of them.
For instance, a "one" is historically most often symbolized as '1', or a simple straight segment without the particular little line on the top of the symbol dipping downwards towards the left. Because we are restricted to our present fonts, maybe using the bar, '|' might be more akin to the original symbol. Before writing or even carving in stone, the likely ease to count using marks on sticks, a count of "one" would likely be made by simply cutting a straight line across it. Since a zero was unnecessary to be represented, if even some symbol were made to specify some count of something, like a "sheep" symbol where one is accounting how many sheep they do not have, they might indicate that no sheep are present by leaving the place where one would normally place some amount of cuts or '|', empty.
The zero as a symbol derived in some way to contrast against the idea of the '|'. For our ancients, they might have though of the '|' akin to a wall or fence which is incomplete on its own to hold some flock of sheep or contain anything where they could easily
escape by going around the ends of it. In this sense, a segment in insufficient to remind one of completeness. The circle would seem to convey the idea of this closure such that it is like an fence that bounds anything contained in it. Our present '0' is somewhat elongated and so to convey a circle, it might be best to use the capital letter, 'O'. Note how the zero is like an infinite line as it cycles upon itself. So our ancients likely though of this as somehow primitive to nature as well to mean something closed, complete, and yet, nothing as well.
If we think of an uncaused cause, the symbol, 'O', to some would represent this as well as to the idea of an origin. The symbol '|' as a segment represents the idea of non-closure if we consider the symbol as merely short for an 'ideal' line going on in both directions infinitely akin to a Euclidean straight line. That is, it is a two-way ray. Notice how the '1' appears as a derivative ray where the bottom of the symbol is the point of origin to the ray and the top is the infinite arrow, akin to our idea of the arrow of time.
I'm only pointing to the symbols here as the models to which our ancients might have been thinking of what they refer to as an idea. I also pointed out before that the idea of infinity as a symbol may have been 'OO' originally for those who may have been thinking of Euclidean points as that which has no space. And since between any two points is an infinity even though they also define a fixed real shortest distance, like a segment, this may have been used because '|' was already used and would be more complex to think of some symbol that represents the continuity of such segments as going infinitely. It is likely too that some have used a sign for infinity by using the segment with arrows on both ends. I'm sure there is a font somewhere for this but can't find it at present.
I used this etymological assumption because I believe it is helpful to hint at how we can interpret the metaphysical and epistemic roots of a something and nothing, finity and infinity, and other related issues that both involve the way we evolved thinking about numbers, logic, and physics with respect to reality. I believe that while some think an origin as fixed, others think of it as unfixed or infinite. The 'fixed' view can also be interpreted as being 'unfixed' one as well in the way a zero is represented and also represents a self-caused cause. It is why I prefer this as a source for arguing from.
Another reason is that if we were to assume a something first, it would be awkward to represent a zero that follows it naturally without placing it at the end akin to infinity. When the zero was realized as meaningful, if we represent our natural numbers as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...infinity}, it is simplest to originate a new more complete representation to zero as being from the left in this 'model'. Thus the "whole" numbers had been defined as the zero AND the natural numbers as {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...infinity}. Then using the symbol of using two '0's, we might define this same set of whole numbers symbolically as {O, |, ...., OO}.
Notice how in this last 'model' of the set illustrates that even if we consider zero as infinite in meaning itself, the set with respect to reality is also infinite OR that the origin begins at zero and proceeds to infinity like our 'arrow of time' description.
My point thus far is that the ideas of a nothing, a something, and infinity, all contribute to various differences of opinions regarding origins and what we need to recognize as the underlying problems of different interpretations to begin on. I believe that for any interpretation, what we have to recognize is that at least both a nothing and a something (as a 'unit') are essential. You might also interpret this too as a nothing and everything (as infinity) as existing as well. A last way, that I think we can interpret is for a something (as a unit) and infinity. Either way, we need at least two of these necessarily to make sense of reality.
It is hard to initially determine if one of these ideas 'existed' first or prior (without time). But I think any approach leads to the same underlying truth for which we seek here. Also, note that we NEED all three ideas as perspectives and is likely where some of our ancients derived their various original ideas that have evolved into religion, such as "The Trinity" of their gods.
All these are also still 'models' and yet also the generalized inference of the special cases of our local experiences considering everything. So while it may be difficult to think of models as being real, we still resort to them even in philosophy regardless. But they are 'real' in that they are simply a reminder of the ideas we infer directly through observing reality regardless.
