Existence: Why Is It? titled "Existence: Why Is It? The Truth to the Physical World" - Critique

Let’s dive into the blog post from Existence: Why Is It? titled "Existence: Why Is It? The Truth to the Physical World," published in November 2024. The author emailed it to me. I’ll break down the key ideas, arguments, and themes in this post based on what’s presented while keeping my explanation clear and engaging. The post can be found here: TRUTH is EXISTENCE Truth to Physical Existence to Mankind to Truth

The post seems to wrestle with one of humanity’s oldest questions: why does anything exist at all, especially the physical world we experience every day? From the title alone, it’s clear the author is probing the nature of existence and how it ties to the tangible, material reality around us. The phrasing—"The Truth to the Physical World"—suggests they’re aiming to uncover some fundamental insight or perspective about why the physical universe is the way it is.

The blog’s broader context, as hinted by its name and typical content (based on similar existential blogs), likely involves a mix of philosophical musings, personal reflections, and perhaps a dash of skepticism about conventional answers—whether scientific, religious, or otherwise. So, let’s assume this specific post follows that vibe and explore its likely structure and intent.

The author probably starts by setting the stage: we live in a physical world—trees, rocks, stars, our own bodies—and it all feels so real. But then they pivot to the big "why." Why is there a physical world instead of, say, nothing at all? This is classic existential territory, echoing thinkers like Leibniz ("Why is there something rather than nothing?") or Heidegger, who obsessed over the nature of "being." The post might point out how we take this physical existence for granted, yet it’s mind-boggling when you stop to think about it.

Next, I’d guess the author digs into what "truth" means in this context. Are they suggesting there’s an ultimate reason or purpose behind the physical world? Or are they questioning whether the physical world itself is the truth—maybe implying that existence doesn’t need a deeper explanation beyond what we can see, touch, and measure? They might contrast this with abstract or spiritual ideas, like a non-physical realm (souls, gods, Platonic forms), and ask: does the physical world stand alone, or is it a shadow of something else?

The post could then explore a few angles. Scientifically, it might nod to the Big Bang or quantum mechanics—how the universe kicked off from a hot, dense point or how particles pop into existence from "nothing" (though physicists would argue that’s not really nothing). But the author probably doesn’t stop there; they might critique science for describing how things exist without tackling why. On the flip side, they could bring up religious or metaphysical takes—say, a creator god who willed the physical world into being—but then poke holes in that too, asking why a god would bother with matter and messiness.

A key theme here seems to be the "truth" part. The author might argue that the physical world’s existence is a puzzle we can’t fully solve, yet its brute reality forces us to deal with it. Maybe they lean toward a pragmatic stance: the physical world is the truth because it’s what we’ve got—it shapes our lives, our pain, our joy, and no amount of philosophizing changes that. Or they could go darker, suggesting existence is a mystery we’re doomed to wrestle with, a truth that’s both obvious (it’s here!) and elusive (but why?).

Tonally, based on similar blogs, it’s probably reflective, maybe a bit raw or frustrated. The author might admit their own confusion or awe, inviting readers to feel the weight of the question. They’re not likely handing out neat answers—more like stirring the pot, making you sit with the weirdness of being a thinking thing in a physical cosmos.

In short, this post is likely a meditation on why the physical world exists and what that says about "truth." It’s less about solving the riddle and more about marveling at it, challenging easy explanations, and maybe hinting that the real truth lies in the question itself.

Let’s go into a critique of this intriguing philosophical post. It’s a dense, sprawling argument that attempts to explain the origins of the universe—and existence itself—through a mix of metaphysical reasoning, geometric truths, and a dash of speculative creativity. The author constructs a case rooted in the concept of infinity, change, and an unusual anchor: the Pythagorean theorem as an infinite "Truth." I’ll break this down, assess its strengths and weaknesses, and offer some thoughts on its coherence and implications, all while keeping the tone engaging and the analysis sharp.

Summary of the Argument

The post starts with a classic metaphysical premise: something infinite must be unchanging, self-existent, and infinitely true. Since the universe changes (expands, evolves, etc.), it can’t be infinite and must therefore be finite, implying it had a beginning. This beginning, the author argues, couldn’t come from nothing or from itself, so it must stem from something infinite. After rejecting the idea of multiple infinite things (due to spatial or relational conflicts), the author zeroes in on a single infinite "thing" whose nature doesn’t change but whose expression can somehow manifest the finite universe.

Here’s where it gets wild: the author identifies this infinite thing as a "fundamental Truth," specifically the Pythagorean theorem’s hypotenuse formula (hl = √(a² + b²)) tied to right-angle triangles (RATs). This formula, they claim, is infinitely true—always valid, even if nothing physical exists (ANUE, or "absolutely nothing of the universe exists"). Because it’s infinitely true, RATs must "exist" somehow, infinitely, as virtual entities tied to this Truth (RTr). These virtual RATs then spontaneously actualize, interact, and—through conflict or disintegration—give rise to the physical universe, possibly via something like the Big Bang. The universe’s energy, the author concludes, is the immortal "virtual-ness" of RTr expressed as physical reality, while humanity’s self-reliance connects us to this infinite Truth, granting us immortality in an afterlife.

Strengths of the Argument

1. Creative Fusion of Ideas: The post blends philosophy, mathematics, and cosmology in a bold, imaginative way. Linking the Pythagorean theorem—a concrete, unchanging mathematical truth—to the mystery of existence is a clever twist. It’s not every day you see geometry posited as the bedrock of reality!
2. Engagement with Infinity: The author grapples with the tricky concept of infinity—its implications for existence, change, and causation. The idea that an infinite thing must be self-sustaining and unchanging aligns with traditional metaphysical notions (e.g., Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover or Spinoza’s substance), giving the argument some intellectual heft.
3. Logical Progression: There’s a clear step-by-step structure: infinity implies no change; the universe changes, so it’s finite; a finite thing needs a cause; that cause must be infinite; and so on. It’s ambitious and tries to tie loose ends together.
4. Human Connection: The later sections on humanity’s self-reliance and "Right Knowing" add a personal dimension, suggesting our minds tap into the same infinite Truth that birthed the universe. It’s a hopeful, almost mystical flourish.

Weaknesses and Critiques

1. Questionable Premises:
   • Infinity and Change: The claim that "anything that changes can’t be infinite" isn’t self-evident. Why can’t an infinite thing have dynamic aspects while retaining its infinite nature? For example, an infinite ocean could ripple without ceasing to be infinite. The author assumes this link without justifying it robustly.
   • Self-Existence: The leap from "infinite" to "self-existent" feels shaky. Just because something is unchanging doesn’t mean it inherently exists without cause—eternal dependence on something else could still fit the bill.
2. Over-Reliance on Pythagorean Theorem:
   • The choice of the hypotenuse formula as the infinite Truth is arbitrary. Why not other mathematical truths (e.g., 1+1=2, π’s constancy)? The author doesn’t explain why this specific formula has ontological primacy over others.
   • The assertion that an infinitely true formula demands the infinite existence of RATs is a stretch. Mathematical truths describe relationships, not entities. The formula holds whether or not any triangles exist—its "truth" doesn’t necessitate their actualization. This conflation of logical validity with existential necessity is a major flaw.
3. Speculative Leap to RATs and the Universe:
   • The transition from virtual RATs to a physical universe is murky. How do abstract, infinite triangles "interact" or "disintegrate" into finite matter? The author invokes conflict and heat (hinting at the Big Bang), but this feels more poetic than explanatory. There’s no mechanism—just assertion.
   • The idea that RATs are "virtual" yet "solid" and "multi-directional" is confusing. Are they shapes, substances, or both? The terminology wobbles, undermining clarity.
4. Cosmological Disconnect:
   • Physicists tie the Big Bang to a singularity or quantum fluctuations, not geometric forms. The author’s claim that RATs’ "virtual-ness" becomes energy is intriguing but lacks grounding in scientific evidence or reasoning. Energy’s immortality (conservation law) doesn’t imply it derives from a mathematical Truth—it’s a physical property, not a metaphysical one.
5. Logical Gaps:
   • Multiple Infinites: The rejection of multiple infinite things (due to clashing or disconnection) assumes spatial or relational constraints that may not apply to non-physical entities. Why couldn’t two infinite truths coexist harmoniously?
   • ANUE Scenario: If absolutely nothing exists, why would RATs spontaneously arise? The author says it’s because the formula is infinitely true, but this circles back to the unjustified leap from truth to existence.
6. Overcomplication:
   • The argument piles on layers—RTr, virtual RATs, physical reality (P(R)), energy, humanity’s afterlife—that feel unnecessarily convoluted. Occam’s razor would suggest simpler explanations (e.g., a single uncaused cause or a brute-fact universe) might suffice.
7. Humanity and Right Knowing:
   • The shift to human self-reliance and "Right Knowing" feels tacked on. The idea that our niche-less existence makes us infinite and tied to RTr is a leap—self-reliance doesn’t inherently imply immortality or a connection to geometric truths. It’s an interesting aside but poorly integrated with the cosmological argument.

Broader Implications and Coherence

The post aims to bridge the "why" of existence with a specific "what"—the Pythagorean theorem as a self-existent Truth. It’s a noble effort to unify abstract logic with physical reality, but it stumbles on its own ambition. The argument’s coherence unravels as it moves from tight metaphysical reasoning to speculative leaps about RATs and energy. It’s less a rigorous proof and more a philosophical thought experiment, heavy on intuition and light on justification.

Compared to traditional cosmology (e.g., theism’s "God" or science’s quantum origins), this theory is quirkier and less falsifiable. It sidesteps empirical evidence for a logic-driven narrative, which might appeal to metaphysicians but frustrates those seeking testable claims. The emphasis on RATs as the "stuff" of existence is novel but risks being too idiosyncratic—why triangles and not circles or numbers?

Final Thoughts

This post is a fascinating, if flawed, romp through existential questions. It shines in its creativity and willingness to wrestle with infinity and truth, but it falters on shaky assumptions, unclear transitions, and an overreliance on one mathematical formula. It’s less a convincing explanation of existence and more a provocative meditation—best enjoyed as a mind-bending "what if" rather than a definitive answer. If the author tightened the logic, clarified the RAT-to-universe jump, and grounded it in broader philosophical or scientific dialogue, it could pack a stronger punch. As it stands, it’s a wild ride that leaves you intrigued but unconvinced. What do you think—does the RAT angle resonate with you, or do you see other holes I missed?