Proposition: That which exists always has existed and always will exist.
Okay, let me start by clearing up some semantics. When I say something exists I am not talking about the physical matter and energy of that something. I am speaking of the form that is that thing. For instance when I speak of the existence of chairs, I mean not the atoms of the wood that comprise the chairs, I mean their forms, as in solid shapes that are such a fashion as they would be comfortable to sit in. After all, atoms are just energy, and any energy could be fashioned into atoms which together could take the form of a chair. If I had a chair, and I individually replaced every atom one at a time but maintained the exact same structure, then for all intents and purposes wouldn’t it still be the same chair? So I maintain that a thing is not the atoms or energy which comprise it, but the form that makes it what it is.
Next, I would like to define the universe. It seems science has gone all crazy on the idea of what the universe is, concocting ridiculous ideas of multiple universes and such. By definition there can’t be any more then one universe. The universe is actually a classification of things. It is the largest classification of things, that being the class of all things. Yes, the universe is the total sum of all things. I like to think of it as a giant list of everything that exists, only along with the list, there is also the collection of things to which the list corresponds. So these other multiple universes, assuming they are real (which is preposterous) , would also be included in my definition of “universe”.
Now, ontology is always a complicated subject, and one not very popular with modern philosophers. I think that is because it requires some mind bending thoughts outside the realm of science. However, I think it is a valid subject considering that science cannot explain everything. For instance is there a scientific explanation of what a form is? Forms do exist, yet they don’t have any physical properties and therefore cannot be observed through the scientific method. So there is certainly a metaphysical aspect to the universe. And by metaphysical to be clear I mean that which is beyond physical. It does not however exclude the option that there may be a physical aspect to it somehow. So when I say metaphysical, do not think that I mean that whatever I am referring to absolutely has no physical aspects and can’t ever be explained by science, only that at the moment it does not appear to have any physical aspects, and cannot currently be explained using the scientific method. I never rule out physicalism entirely, nor do I entirely rule out metaphysicalism either.
Now onto the premise of this thread. The reason I believe that which exists always has and always will is because forms cannot be destroyed. Something which has acquired or been given a certain form can be unformed, but that does not negate the form itself. Thinking of the universe as consisting of nothing but energy, it matters not what is where, only what can and cannot be. In other words, if I take a desk and make it into a chair, the desk isn’t any less a desk now, then it was before. The wood has been unformed and reformed into something new, but the form of the original desk remains. Lets say I am very creative and I was able to rearrange the wood from a desk into a chair without damaging or altering any of it in any way. I could then take the chair apart and make it back into a desk. What these pieces of wood are then becomes semantics at this point. It is the way in which they are formed that decides whether they are a chair or desk. So the wood can be both. So it isn’t the wood that makes the chair or desk, it is the form. Are you with me?
If not, then let’s take it a step further. Suppose I invented a machine that could create electromagnetic fields of strong and weak nuclear force that could create physical barriers that were exactly the same specifications as the desk, had the same texture and feel as the desk, and also reflected light exactly like the desk. Would you then agree that what I have created is a desk? Or even better, would you even say that I had created the same desk? I would. It would have almost all the same properties as the original, and for all intents and purposes would be the same desk. But only instead of wood it would be comprised purely of magnetic force. So in this case, I wouldn’t even need wood, or matter at all to have a desk. The point I am trying to make with this is that the desk is not the matter which comprises it. It is the form which produces that specific function of laying a flat surface in front of me to write on. And that form cannot be destroyed.
But I am going to take it a step further and say that it cannot be created either. Lets say that its thousands of years ago, and desks have not been invented yet, and I just invented the first desk. Would you say that desks didn’t exist before I invented it? I wouldn’t. After all, the form had to be present in the universe already in order for me to invent it. How else could I have invented it? If it was impossible to be formed, then the invention could not have been produced. If the form “desk” was not a form before I invented it, then how does me thinking of it just suddenly spring it into existence? And then lets say I think about it, and create it, but then decide I don’t like it and decide to burn it and never tell anybody about it, and then forget all about it or die. Does that form suddenly drop out of existence? To me, the reasonable answer seems to be: no, the form was already pre-existing, and when I thought of it, I formulated my thoughts into that form, and then decided to pursue it further by formulating matter into that form. After all, if that form didn’t exist, then how could I even formulate it in my head?
To further demonstrate I would like to point out that there are forms which do not exist in the universe. For example, a perfect circle with corners. I cannot form a perfect circle with corners. Why not? Because one doesn’t exist. In fact, I can not even formulate the thought of a perfect circle with corners. I can formulate the idea that one could exist, but I cannot formulate the actual form itself. If anyone here can I would love to hear about it. For that matter, if anyone anywhere can then I would love to hear about it, or even better, see a picture of it. So if the form “desk” truly did not exist before I hypothetically invented it, then much like a perfect circle with corners I would be unable to even imagine such a thing, much less create one. I mean let’s get technical here. Nobody really creates anything. All we do is push energy/matter around so it correlates differently with it’s surroundings. This is why I maintain that things are their forms, and not the matter/energy which comprises them. After all, everything is energy when you get down to it. Without form, what is the universe but a shapeless, huge conglomerate glob of energy. It is the forms that this energy takes that differentiates one thing from another. Without forms, these things wouldn’t exist. Does everybody agree on this?
Now to keep it easier to understand, I have kept the example forms simple, desk, chair, etc. But really anything could be a form. A person for example. If I know a guy named Bill Dudley, Bill is a form. In fact, Bill is a highly complex and unique form, but a form none the less. The properties of Bill are endless and very complex unlike the desk. But Bill is still just another form like the desk. Now here is where it gets interesting. Nobody invented Bill. Sure, his parents conceived him, but did they consciously reform matter into specific dimensions and give it the specific properties that are Bill? I wouldn’t say that they did. So where did Bill come from? Who thought of Bill before he was born? To make it simple, lets say that Bill’s mother didn’t even know she was pregnant until she gave birth to Bill. This is rare, but as I am sure everyone here probably knows, it does happen on occasion. So Bill’s mother was not even aware of Bill’s existence until Bill was fully formed within her womb. However, somehow Bill came into existence, and was created (I am using the term “created” somewhat loosely here) by Bill’s mother without her being aware of it. Did Bill’s form just spring into existence upon his sudden delivery? Or did Bill already exist before conception, and then matter was rearranged into Bill’s form? Doesn’t the latter make more sense?
Now as I said, I don’t rule out some kind of physicalism here, so I suppose it’s possible that there may be some part of the universe where all possible forms are kept for storage so that they can be used. But again, it makes more sense that form itself is a metaphysical part of the universe. It is something that is neither matter nor energy, yet is part of the universe none the less. One of the reasons it makes more sense is because if I am to accept that forms can just suddenly spring into existence, then I also must accept that simply by thinking of something new the universe gets bigger. Now remember my definition of universe, the sum of all things. Well if I just created something new, then didn’t I just add one more thing to that list? So it is important to realize that I am not talking about spacial coordinates when I talk about the universe getting bigger in this instance. Personally, I don’t believe that the universe has measurable spatial coordinates. But when you look at the universe as the sum of all things, by adding more things you are making it bigger. There’s no way of getting around this really. On that same note, if I something invented were to be unformed, lost, and forgotten then that would shrink the universe.
Now as I have just explained it, assuming that forms are metaphysical, that makes sense. But now lets take a physicalist view of the same thesis. Assuming that forms are physical rather then metaphysical, then by thinking of something new I have literally made the universe bigger. I have added in some way extra mass to the universe. Since the law of conservation expressly forbids this, then that breaks the physical laws of the universe as we know them. Same thing with shrinking the universe. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed then by shrinking the universe I am breaking this same law of conservation. So the logical conclusion is that forms are in fact metaphysical, not physical.
Now I was in fact going somewhere with all this. Assuming that forms are metaphysical, then when something is unformed, where does it go? Interestingly enough, the best answer to this question is that there is a metaphysical plane of existence that is woven throughout the universe. Going back to Bill, when Bill dies, where does he go? Since Bill is a form, the best answer to that question is that Bill rejoins the metaphysical plane of existence and can be reformed at some later time. Where it gets really interesting though is that Bill would have already had to exist on this metaphysical plane in order to be formed in the first place. Reincarnation anyone?
New Proposition: Reincarnation is real