Thought Experiment by b.e. hydomako One day someone proposed the following thought experiment to me. S/he said: Imagine a brand new, empty universe with only one thing in it (it might be easier to do this if we assume that "I" am the only thing in the empty universe observing nothing). This immediately reminds me of a couple of accounts (fictional, of course) of such a state of affairs. The first is a story by Italo Calvino in Cosmicomics. In the story the narrator, one "Qfwfq" I think, tells an account of existence as the singularity at the beginning of space-time. Compacted within the singularity there are still discrete personalities that relate through their interactions-they are simply very close to one and other (in fact, we might have to picture them as completely overlapping one and other). The second account is given by, I think, Rudy Rucker in (again, if memory serves adequately) The Fourth Dimension. Rucker spins an alternate tale of Edwin Abbott's character "A Square" from Flatland. Here, A Square visits "pointland" and observes a point. The point is completely unaware of anything outside itself, and simply exists in a state where it mutters to itself of about the fact of its own existence. Rucker, in White Light, gives another view of a character who encounters a similar state of affairs. Here, the narrator "Felix" comes into contact with and/or becomes "Absolute Zero." In this, everything around him, including himself, disintegrates-from infinity to nothing. As Felix says, "We're going towards zero…Nothing." The occurrence closes with Felix and his book existing as "One eye. One page. One Word. One." And it remains unspoken-could it be any other way?-that after "One" (emptiness) So, let's get on to the thought experiment. Initially I'd like to say that I am skeptical that there can be "a brand new, empty universe with only one thing in it." Here's why. It seems to me that for there to be a universe, then there has to be space-time. Now, I think that Relativity requires (but I could be wrong) that for space-time to exist, then there has to be a non-empty universe. While it seems that we could say that our universe is not empty because it contains one object, and so, there must be space-time, it appears to me that the singularity that might exist as the start of the Big Bang does not exist within space-time. Put differently, it seems to me that a universe can only exist as it is extended in space-time, and since there is, by assumption, only a singularity, then there is no extension, thus, there is no universe; therefore, there is, in a sense, nothing. I'll put that aside for now, and get on with simply assuming the premises of the experiment. If I was the only thing in an otherwise empty universe, then here are the different scenarios I can imagine. If I exist as myself observing nothing, but still exist as myself, then there are still relations-namely, the relation of identity between I and I (ganja, anyone?). In this situation I am much like the point in Rucker's tale that exists oblivious to anything but my own being: I sit and mutter to myself about the certainty of my own existence, perhaps much like Descartes. Thus, there is at least the relation of identity. Given the relation of identity, this branches in three ways: a) If I exist in my body, then I am still a structure that is made up of relations amongst constituent parts (organs, bones, etc.), and so, my existence as a thing still seems dependent upon relations. b) If I exist as only a thinking entity, without a body, then there is still the structure of my thoughts. In my thoughts my self-identity creates a difference between self and being this self, and so, perhaps like for Descartes, there are still the relations amongst constituent parts of thought which structure the thinking self-the "thing" that I am. In these two scenarios I end up much like Qfwfq: a "thing" existing as relations amongst parts that are compacted into a so-called "singularity." The single thing that I am, even surrounded by nothing else, still appears to be a bundle of relations. c) I can still assume identity, but remove all these other relations. Here there is only I = I: nothing but the singularity itself. This seems like the approach to Absolute Zero where, as Felix says, "Zero and Infinity. There the same at the Absolute." In other words, we get a contradiction. (I.) The pure identity of I = I appears to be, as some say, a tautology. Given this tautology, it is empty of content beyond anything other than identity-it doesn't exist in any way that is meaningful outside itself. (II.) However, inside itself it exists as its own identity-its content is absolutely itself. I'll try this a little differently to try to make this more clear. Unfortunately, I'll have to rely on mathemetaphor. Think of the pure identity 3 = 3. If we are given 3=3 outside of anything else, i.e., if 3 = 3 was the "one thing in an otherwise empty universe," then there is nothing to 3. It is a tautology that has no meaning outside itself, it is, in this sense, nothing. However, within 3, there is /// = ///. Its content is absolutely itself, and in this sense, it is everything. So it appears that if we only assume identity without any other relations, then we end up with any one of n = n (where n = or > 1) such that it exists as nothing and everything-a contradiction. Thus, given c) alone, nothing is one thing (or all things or anything), and so, if there is only one thing, then it is empty: no relations, no-thing. 1 = 0. We throw all the above away, and simply go with one thing that "…has nothing to relate to. So its not in any web of relations…" If I imagine one thing that has nothing to relate to, then I imagine nothing at all. If there was a simple atomic, and nothing that it relates to, can be compared with, can be seen in contrast to, then there isn't anything there, is there? Like the "event horizon" that cloaks the singularity from any direct observance. Again, no relations, no-thing. 1 = 0. Or to put it differently, as nomenasno have in their song "Forget Your Life": "Now if you feel like nothing, nothing and nobody, and if you see nothing, nothing and nobody-forget your life: it's nothing." In other words, if there is one "thing" with nothing to relate to, then it's nothing. The singular "thing" identifies with (emptiness) Thus, given the premises of this thought experiment, I get, in 1a) & 1b), that a thing exists insofar as it is a bundle of relations, even if it appears to be the only existing thing, it is not really atomic; in 1c) & 2) I get the contradiction that one thing is no-thing: without relations there is nothing there. So it seems to me that it does matter what "thing" is there: if it is a thing, then it exists as a structure of relations, and if there is no structure of relations, then there is no "thing."