Self-Existence

Two options are under consideration for self-existence: a being/God, and the energy level of the universe. It is not claimed that the latter is fully understood, but that it is the more worthy avenue of investigation.

Knowns to account for:

• Conservation of Energy
• The singularity (the beginning of time)

Note: Conservation of Energy (CoE) is an observed truth in this universe, not a logical necessity of all universes. It's easy to simulate worlds that violate CoE. Also note that 'violating CoE' does not logically mandate heading off to infinite or zero energy, merely that it can fluctuate.

Candidate 1: A Being

1. Assumed to be capable of choice.
2. Assumed to be pure actuality, with no potential. (How is this compatible with 1?)

If there is choice involved, it ought to be justifiable. Why should time and space begin at a singularity, and why should conservation of energy be so strictly observed, to the point where the environment we inhabit is fully dictated - and greatly restricted - by extrapolation from both? By way of illustration, the amount of stuff in the observable universe, if arranged more agreeably, abandoning the superfluous causal chain from singularity and CoE and imposing a straightforward 'Minecraft' style system of downward gravity and impenetrable bedrock, would yield a habitable environment (conservatively) two thousand billion billion billion times the surface area of Earth. CoE also mandates hunger, thirst, limited resources. It pits life against itself and creates the food chain - the most abominable feature imaginable in any universe.

If the bible is to believed, God can cause CoE to be violated. So we are left with an unanswerable question: why choose to violate it in those specific, trivial ways, when so many better options for existence are available to someone with that power?

Candidate 2: Energy

1. Assumed to be incapable of choice.
2. Assumed to be pure actuality, with no potential.

Obviously, we get conservation of energy for free, as it's merely a restatement of the premise.

In this scenario, existence is inevitably all and only states in which energy is conserved.

Does our existence require energy to 'choose'?

No. All possible states that conserve energy exist. This also tallies with the implications of Quantum Mechanics.

Is energy obliged to change?

No. The set of all states in which energy is conserved is static and unchanging. This multidimensional 'sculpture' of states is characteristic of energy that is being neither created nor destroyed. To put it another way, it is the only shape that energy that is neither created nor destroyed can have.

What about the singularity?

This is where things get really interesting. The existence of the singularity is mandatory, as it belongs to the set of states where energy is conserved.

More than that, the conundrum of causality evaporates. Rather than imagining history as a hierarchy of effects, descending a ladder resting on mysterious darkness beyond, we can imagine instead taking a journey to the North Pole. There is nothing to stop us continuing to walk in a straight line when we get there, but all directions from the north pole necessarily lead south.

So it is with the singularity. It's just part of the set of existence, one of many allowed and thus mandatory states, surrounded on all sides by other states. To 'go back in time' is to approach it in our imagination from the vantage point of this 'slice' of existence. There is no end to be found there, no inexplicable nothingness 'beyond'. All 'directions' are available for us to travel - it is simply that if we do so we are obliged to depart the singularity state. It should not be visualised as an extremity, but as the centre. It is not the 'causal seed' of the states around it, it simply must be there and 'where it is' based on CoE.

Summary

• God doesn't explain the singularity or strict conservation of energy.
• Observed 'choices' are inexplicable and lead to unnecessary suffering, inequality and poverty, and a universe in which life is only just barely not impossible.
• Does not provide a basis for the 'causal ladder' view of history anyway, begging the question of why the rest of the ladder is even there.

• We can see and test that the existence of energy is non-contingent: no event can create or destroy it.
• We can see and test that all states conserving energy exist and interlock (see slit experiments)
• The seeming tendency of energy to change is an illusion created by the way we are observing it. Conceived as a whole, the overall 'form' of energy is static and eternal.
• Eliminates the 'causal ladder' conundrum. The singularity is surrounded on all 'sides' by other states. It is the state of lowest entropy; the centre of existence, not an extremity.