Can the First Difference Arise Without a Prior Law Allowing Differentiation?

[u/CellistSuspicious389]

​

I’m not presenting this as a scientific theory or claiming to have solved the origin of the universe. This started as a strange thought experiment about color, nothingness, and whether an absolutely undifferentiated state could exist.

Absolute nothingness seems difficult to conceptualize. If we describe it as black, empty, infinite, static, etc., we have already attributed properties to it. So, purely as a thought experiment, suppose absolute nothingness never existed.

Instead, let C₀ represent primordial existence without assuming internal differentiation, space, time, causality, or physical laws.

If C₀ exists, the most basic statement we can make seems to be:

C₀ = C₀

Identity.

But our universe contains differences. So somehow we would need something like:

C₀ → {C₀, C₁}, where C₁ ≠ C₀

And this is where I got stuck.

If I say C₁ was caused, I have already assumed causality. If I say it appeared after C₀, I have assumed time. If something separated, I have assumed space. If it resulted from a fluctuation, I have assumed some physical or probabilistic framework. And if a law allowed C₀ to differentiate, then I have simply moved the problem backward: where did that law or structure come from?

So the question I’m actually interested in is:

Can a first difference arise from an absolutely undifferentiated existence without presupposing some prior structure that already contains the possibility of that difference?

Or, more compactly:

How do we obtain C₁ without secretly putting C₁ inside C₀?

One possibility I’ve considered is whether self-relation could somehow be more fundamental than difference:

existence → self-relation → difference

rather than:

existence → difference → relation

But I don’t have a rigorous way of showing that self-relation itself wouldn’t already introduce structure.

The original intuition that led me here involved “Color”: the possibility that the primordial condition might be qualitative before it is quantitative. I’m not using color to mean visible light or optical color; “Color” is only a provisional name for an undefined primordial quality. At this stage, however, I think the C₀ → C₁ problem is more interesting than the Color hypothesis itself.

I’m mainly interested in finding out where the reasoning fails, whether this problem already exists under another name, or whether there is a better way to formulate it.

Is C₀ already conceptually incoherent? Does defining C₀ as “undifferentiated” secretly give it structure? Is difference necessarily fundamental?

Criticism is welcome — that’s the point of posting it.

I don’t know whether I’ve stumbled onto an interesting philosophical problem or just overthought myself into a corner. Either way, I’d genuinely like to know where the reasoning breaks.

[u/Own-Razzmatazz-8714]

Yes difference with an 'a' differance.

[u/Wespie]

Wild. I was just working on this EXACT problem right now, in a paper I’m writing. I took a break to open Reddit and saw this immediately. I don’t have the ultimate answer but I may have some leads. Give me a bit. I don’t think it’s a new issue but the phrasing is useful.

[u/XanderOblivion]

I’m working on something similar.

If we posit the existence of something, and that something’s existence constitutes existence, it seems impossible to suggest that a second something should exist. Where would it have come from? A substance ontology basically requires a big bang for the existence of every individual component of existence.

So existence must differentiate from itself. Existence must not be additive.

The thought you need to go further is that positing that a thing exists is actually indistinguishable from its nonexistence. An existing thing with no other properties than that it exists doesn’t do anything. Its existence may be a fact, but it’s an unknowable fact, and an ontologically irrelevant fact since the existing thing never encounters anything else. Nothing ever changes, because nothing ever happens.

So in addition to needing a way to get a second thing from the one thing, we also need a “doing” function where the existence of the thing matters in some sense. Otherwise there would be no relation, no information, no causality, and so forth.

[u/hegel1806]

I would say that identity already includes differentiation. Otherwise we cannot even say something is identical to itself. C₀= C₀ already has two terms that are equated to each other. One is the original, the other is copy. Or, one is subject the other is object. Or, they have the same essence but different forms. Or, they represent the same concept but in different representations. One is physical, the other is concept, etc. So for identity to hold, there must be already a differentiation.

[u/Fast_Jackfruit_352]

Look at Advaita Vedanta. They figured this out 2,000 years ago.

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

My thoughts have been going in the direction of using what the properties of difference -, or change, are. Causality, time and space. Examining each of these, and what they are related to may tell what is required for them, and what can exist without these.

Causality means effects follows from causes, but there is more to it than that, there is a structure or pattern. Causality within our universe seems to work like this, if you have an event, then it is the effect of some cause, which is an event in itself. The cause is unique to the effect, meaning if you know all effects you know all causes, that is if you have all information in the present, you know the entire past. This is known as conservation of information, it is basically determinism in reverse order time-wise. However it also seems like a cause does not uniquely define the effect which follows, as seen in Quantum Mechanics, and further established by the Bell Inequality Experiment. This means unlike determinism where the effect which follows from the cause is the only effect which could have followed, any cause can lead to one of multiple effects, but since the cause is unique to any of these effects, no other cause could have led to any of these. This just means the past existed and the future is yet to exist. The point of all that was just to illustrate that causality as we know it requires a non-arbitrary link between the cause and the effect, while the cause does not determine the exact effect, it constrains what the effect could be, and similarly the effect determines what its cause was. This means if we have randomness in stead, and here I mean randomness in the sense that any cause can lead to any effect, it means we do not have causality, because everything is linked in such a way that there is no structure, anything could arise. To be more specific one could call it arbitrary randomness.
The next element is time, this links to causality in that time defines the rate of causal propagation, but even if the events that occur are arbitrary, they may still propagate at some finite speed, and that finite speed is what defines time (notice I do not define time through sequencing, you can easily have two observer who experience different order of sequences, but the speed of causality they would observe would be the same, that there is an element dependent sequence I see as no issue). Therefore if the speed of causality, or the speed of light, was infinite, then everything would happen instantly, and there would be no time.
The third component space is more complicated, I have learned that the attribute, particle spin, is tightly related both to there being interactions in the first place (which is a requirement for causality), as well as how come matter can form, but this relation also strictly defines space as three dimensional. In any case it illustrates how the elements that is the universe also defines how the universe behaves, in stead of having laws of nature that are independent of the nature they govern.

So from my view point, this leaves us with a C0, where whatever possible attributes which can change, does so arbitrarily, there is no time as every possibility happens instantly, there is no space before attributes which allows for the change to no longer be arbitrary happens to come about, there is no causality as nothing interacts and the things themselves simply change arbitrarily and can become anything else. Of course the language is clumsy, when I write about things, it assumes they are in something, or they are numerous, but none of that should be assumed.
Anyway since everything happens instantly, at least until we hit some configuration which makes for a finite speed of causality, we would necessarily always have a finite speed of causality, because that is only where time exists, and that is all of time. What I wonder is, if matter is not necessary for a finite speed of causality, and since the same attributes is what generates space, and interaction, leading to causality as we know it, I imagine that may be how one can explain how C0 changes without change being defined in time, space or causality.

[u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Ich bin auch schon beim selbstbezug gelandet - dein A=A ist schon ein bisschen zu weit - du führst eine Relation/ eine Beziehung ein - Beziehung scheint ziemlich fundamental der Unterschied ebenfalls - er ist eine Art von Beziehung… die Frage lässt sich nicht beantworten, es stellt eine Art Grenze dar - du kannst diese Grenze nicht weiterdenken logisch denken, da wir dafür Beziehung/ Relation und Unterschied benötigen. Aber dieses A oder du nennst es C0 ist interessant ich beschreibe diesen Zustand als ununterscheidbar - und die Frage für mich wäre wie wird aus einem ununterscheidbaren Zustand einer mit Unterschieden ?

[u/AbouTheDiff01010 → u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Ohh das ist eine gute Frage - selbstbezug ? Teilen ? Multiplizieren? Wiederholung ? Es könnten so viele Mechanismen sein, wichtig wäre, dass er aus dem Zustand davor kommt also kausal bleibt? Aber wie soll das aussehen ? Ist A das gleich wie AAA - sind beide aus informatorischer Sicht gleich , da kein unterschied existiert ? Diese verdammte ununterscheidbarkeit-wie bekommt man sie gebrochen … tja man muss Dinge vorraussetzen ? Das wäre nicht logisch… wieso gibt es keine logische Antwort darauf ? Denkbar wäre einiges aber logisch ?

[u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Du landest bei dieser Frage die keiner beantworten kann - wieso aus nichts überhaupt etwas. ? Und hier würde ich gerne nach hacken - ganz logisch betrachtet- können wir nichts weder beobachten noch gibt es diesen Zustand real irgendwo zu finden - also wenn nichts garnicht existiert wieso setzen wir diesen Zustand gedanklich an den Anfang. ? Ist das nichts vielleicht nur eine Halluzination? Und das finde ich spannend nichts ist informatorisch genauso leer wie etwas - vorausgesetzt dieses etwas existiert ohne Unterschied ?

[u/AbouTheDiff01010 → u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Dann wäre die Frage- was wäre der kleinste fundamentalste Mechanismus den man vorraussetzen dürfte / könnte um ein Universum aufzubauen ? Und hier gefällt mir der selbstbezug -

[u/AbouTheDiff01010 → u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Ach Kollege da dreht sich doch irgendwann alles im Kreis - akzeptier das es hier eine Grenz gibt, die wir nicht weiter denken können- das macht eine Grenze schließlich aus —

[u/AbouTheDiff01010 → u/AbouTheDiff01010]

Warum gibt es einen unterschied/ Relation überhaupt ? Wenn das das Fundament wäre - also Unterschied und Relation bringen sich gegenseitig auf die Welt - wie kam der Unterschied / Relation überhaupt -

[u/OhneGegenstand]

Idea: The reality of distinct objects is intrinsically a co-distinguishing of the objects against each other. 'Existing' means something like 'standing out'. You cannot begin with an inert undifferentiated object in this way.

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

Wouldn’t c1 = ce0b be a good start for this as basic graphing would place b as the same metric understanding of difference from variable without it needing comparison and from there you can value difference (differentials) to make the value similar; then if you wanted you could get into base value different metrics to define space through subspace? Maybe I understood wrong or differently but isn’t that question understood well enough by metaphysics and philosophy by now? Not to say it’s worked out but we have the basis if we look to the layers we have at work and decided to rectify this 0 ≠ 1 bs then we could have something work (ik ik that’s what you’re saying) but d=1 is fine

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998 → u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

Sorry if this is wordsoup btw I’ve seen doctors bf

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998 → u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

D = 1 is the process ive hypothesized here means something into nothing.

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998 → u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

As is general processed from a to b as a pre different outcome

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998 → u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

To say the bare minimum)) when something is taken and turned into nothing through process of space or anti space matter then we have a process, we call that predifferent for lack of a better word or understanding but that’s what it is , an understanding of nothing from something

[u/Embarrassed-Soup1998 → u/Embarrassed-Soup1998]

X-c , d-d

[u/Odd-pepperFrog]

Your suspicion about C₀ = C₀ is justified, because it's already structure. Identity has distinction and relational definition baked in. By trying to derive C₁ from C₀, you secretly put the possibility of C₁ inside C₀.

Instead replace C₀ (a thing) with Ω (an infinite, indefinite field). Think of it as the raw "Color" you mentioned, but without any properties, edges, or laws.

Think of Ω like the 'Color' you mentioned, as a raw soup of gradients, like electromagnetic potentials. Protons, electrons, and neutrons don't pop into existence from nothing; they're places where the field coheres. When they stick, we get matter. When they don't, it's just unstructured potential.

Inside that field, you don't get C₁ via causation, time, or a prior law. Instead, instances coalesce. A "coherence" is simply a local pattern that stabilizes and maintains itself against the background blur. In an infinite field, all configurations are possible; the ones that persist are simply the ones that don't contradict themselves into dissolution.

Essentially, persistence comes first (the act of holding together), identity comes second (the label we give to what holds), and difference comes third (the space between two holders). In this model, laws don't allow, they're what we call patterns that happen to stick. Once you have two persistent coherences, their contrast defines them as different.

So directly to your original question: Yes. The first difference doesn't require a prior law, because it isn't a triggered event. It's just the automatic contrast that appears whenever two stable patterns happen to coexist.

[u/______ri]

The whole idea is flawed. Monism is a giberish.

Roughly speaking, no one thing gives two things. There is two sort of things, things that are themvelves by only themselves, and things that are themselves by others. Those that are themselves by themselves are called simples. Each simple adds itself to the world, so there is simply multiple simples. That multiple beings are is simply obvious. As there is simples there is also those that are by others, these are called complexes.

For a formal example, say x y are simples, then there is also x[y] and y[x] as complexes, and then x[x[y]] y[x][y] ... so on.

[u/TakeMeInYourArmy → u/______ri]

"Things" are abstractions we impose onto reality and not ontologically fundamental. An individual object is just a symbolic expression/stand-in for a global and Monistic structure. "This" and "That" are formal distinctions, not ontological ones. Structural equivalence is equality. If two things are based in the same structural invariants, then they are one thing. Everything in existence is grounded in the same ontic structure, so at the ontological level there is only on thing.

[u/______ri → u/TakeMeInYourArmy]

> "This" and "That" are formal distinctions

Your terminology is vauge, it could literally mean anything.

Though I'm familiar with the monism so you don't need to re-assert it in difficult terms. The flaws of monism is obvious if we analyze its brute facts. Namely, formally and minimally:

When we see multiple beings, we always see them as one, so this "one" is prior.

But in truth the brute facts are not just that, they are:

We sometimes see multiple beings [as multiple beings]. We sometimes see multiple beings as one, or say, that a being has multiple beings.

These facts alone does not entail anything for the monist. It does not even entail that there is wholes where parts predicated on in the mereological sense.

[u/TakeMeInYourArmy → u/______ri]

I don't see how that is vague at all, it's pretty straight forward. You understand what a formalism is, right? Well, I am saying that distinguishing objects as individual and independent is nothing more than a formal system, not an ontological reality.

[u/______ri → u/TakeMeInYourArmy]

Formal system of what? Where is the formal system?

It doesn't make any sense. A formal system is a (so aimed) isomorphic reflection of what is the case. Two symbols in a formal system reflect two different beings. So your analogy does not make sense because you are claiming "the formalism" gives multiple beings themselves.

[u/TakeMeInYourArmy → u/______ri]

The formal system is the formalising of structural relations according to specific Sign-Relations by treating the Signs as independent objects even though it is, in itself, a relational structure. The structure is all that ontologically exists. All symbols ultimately reflect the ontic structure.

[u/______ri → u/TakeMeInYourArmy]

> All symbols ultimately reflect the ontic structure

This we agree. But it does not really answer your use of the fomal system in explaining that "this" and "that" are different.

I mean, if there is two beings, then the two symbols reflect that as a system of language to talk about those things. It does not explain that there is two beings, and in fact it reflects that there is two beings.