The Foundations of Existence

by
William McGarvey
2014

Being is in nothingness in the mode of nothingness, and nothingness is in being in the mode of
being. Nothingness is being, and being is nothingness. Being does not stem from nothingness
alone but rather from being and nothingness together. All is one in the simplicity of absolute
undifferentiation. Our limited mind cannot grasp or fathom this, for it joins infinity.
Azriel of Gerona (thirteenth century)

Table of Contents
The Foundations of Existence ....................................................................................................................... 1
The Existence of Objects .......................................................................................................................... 1
Numbers and Collections .......................................................................................................................... 2
Mappings .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Computability of Mappings ...................................................................................................................... 5
Our Existence ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Nature and the Universe............................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 10
About the Author ........................................................................................................................................ 13

The Foundations of Existence

The Existence of Objects

To discuss the foundations of existence, one must start somewhere, and an appropriate
place to start is with nothing. We begin with an infinite unbounded void of undifferentiated
nothingness. Because the void is infinite and unbounded, there is nothing else. The void is all
there is and all there is is nothing. For this reason it is called the ain (all is nothing).
Now consider being alone in the ain where all is infinite nothingness. Among all the
nothingness, choose one spot, one point, in the ain to focus on. This point can be arbitrarily large
or small (it is called the infinitesimal point), but it is something. It is a location distinct from the
rest of the ain (which is nothing). From this comes the first concept, the concept that nothing and
something are distinctly different. It is this distinction that defines existence.
Consider the first object, the first something, the infinitesimal point. The object exists
because it is distinct from what it is not. That is, it is discrete. All objects that exist must be
contained within a clear and complete conceptual boundary that separates the object from what is
not the object. These boundaries both define objects and contain them. Boundaries can be
thought of as containers of objects, and being objects themselves, can also be empty. From this
comes the concept of two types of objects: containers, which can contain other objects, and
elements, objects that are considered to be solid and unable to contain any objects other than
themselves.
Thus, the infinitesimal point can be considered as either an element, a solid object with a
clear and distinct boundary between itself and the ain, or it can be considered a container capable
of containing other objects within it, a boundary between existence and nonexistence. It is the
1

latter consideration that is the most interesting by far, and it has been given two names: the view
of existence and the universe under consideration. Both names convey the idea that it is the
container of all that exists and a portal into existence.
Because the view of existence is completely bounded, it is not possible for it to contain an
infinite number of objects. However, it is possible for the view of existence to contain any finite
number of objects (containers and elements). If a view of existence is possible, then it is
considered to exist and is immutable. Thus, there are infinitely many views of existence, all of
which contain a finite number of objects.

Numbers and Collections

Within the view of existence, a container that contains either nothing or only elements is
called a number. An empty container is considered to be the number zero. A container with
exactly and only a single element is the number one. A container that contains exactly and only
two elements is the number two. Let n be a natural number (including zero). There is a one-toone correspondence between n and a number with n elements. There are an infinitely many
numbers, all of which contain a finite number of elements.
Numbers exist within containers called collections. A collection is a container capable of
containing numbers and other collections (called sub-collections). Collections can also be empty
(the number zero is also called the empty collection).
Collections and sub-collections can contain any finite number of numbers, and the
numbers can be in any order. However, order is a distinction. For example, the collection
{0,2,1,2} is distinct from (not the same as) the collection {0,2,2,1}. Note that a collection
containing only an empty sub-collection, {{}}, is the same collection as one containing only the
number zero, {0}. Collections and sub-collections can contain any number of sub-collections, but
2

it is not possible for a collection to contain itself. There are infinitely many collections, all of
which contain a finite number of sub-collections and numbers.

Mappings
If A and B are collections, then A is either B or it is not, and this "is/is not" is a simple and
true expression of a relationship (A is B / A is different from B ). If A is not B, then there exists a
difference between them. Two collections might differ in the number, order, or value of the
numbers they contain. They might differ in the number, order, or content of their sub-collections.
However, since collections contain a finite number of numbers and sub-collections, their
differences can be finitely enumerated. That is, between any collections that exist, there also exist
complete descriptions of their differences (their difference relationships). Difference
relationships between collections come part and parcel with the collections. They exist because
collections exist.
Further, these differences can be expressed as actions that transform one collection into
the other. Let A be the collection {1} and B be the collection {2}. It is true that they are not the
same collection. They contain different numbers and these numbers differ by one element. If one
element were added to the number one, it would be the same number as two. Thus, "add one
element to the number in collection A", expresses a difference relationship between the
collections, and also describes how collection A can be transformed, or mapped, to collection B.
A mapping1 is a true expression of a difference relationship between collections A and B,
expressed as a finite sequence of actions, or operations, performed on numbers and subcollections that, starting with A results in B. A is said to be mapped to B. As shown above,
arithmetic (the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, exponentiation, and division) is
1

In Mathematics, the word mapping is often used to mean a function. Although similar, this is not the same as the
definition of mapping used herein.

one way of describing difference relationships. Other ways include inserting, removing, or
concatenating sub-collections or numbers.
Since mappings are true expressions of difference relationships, if A and B are collections,
then there exists a mapping from A to B. There are infinitely many mappings, all of which
contain a finite number of operations. Also, A is said to be the input to the mapping and B is the
output. While the output collection can be considered to be the result of the input/mapping
combination, this does not imply that the input "came first" or that the mapping modified or
changed the input in any way. Objects are immutable.
A mapping expresses a difference relationship, and this relationship could apply to many
collections. In other words, a mapping can be capable of mapping from and to many collections.
For example, a "plus 1" mapping could accept a collection containing any number n as input and
map it to the collection that contains the number n + 1 ({n}{n + 1}). If A is a collection and M
is a mapping, then M either maps A or it does not, and if M maps A to B, then M will always map
A to B.
There may be many ways to express the differences between A and B, hence there will
exist many mappings from A to B. Any finite combination of operations that, given A as input,
produces B as output is a mapping from A to B. They can be simple, complex, or convoluted. An
arbitrary, apparently random sequence of operations that collectively succeed in mapping A to B
is nonetheless a mapping. Alternatively, mappings can logically and efficiently describe complex
and subtle relationships between collections. Examples of types of mappings include:
Rule Based Mappings. Rule based mappings are quite straightforward. Built-in rules are
applied to the input which directly results in the output. The "plus one" mapping is an
example of a rule based mapping.

 Recursive Mappings. A recursive mapping, starting with given input, recursively maps to
an output sequence where each further term of the output sequence is derived from the
preceding terms. An example of a recursive mapping is the Fibonacci sequence which
would accept {0,1} as input and use the numbers as the first two terms in the output
sequence (T0 = 0, T1 = 1), and then use the recursive formula Tn = Tn1 + Tn2 to get the
following terms: {0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ...}. Note, however, that the mapping
would end at some point and the output collection would contain a finite number of terms.
Goal/Objective Driven Mappings. A goal/objective driven (g/od) mapping, under the
constraints of its built-in rules and input, evaluates multiple potential output collections
and attempts to choose for its output the one whose attributes come closest to achieving
built-in goals or objectives. For example, a g/od mapping could have as its input a
collection of sub-collections, and as its output the sub-collection that best matches its
goal/objective. These mappings could use search algorithms, pattern recognition,
probabilistic reasoning, and other intelligent methods to attain their objectives.

Computability of Mappings
Mappings are processes comprised of a finite number of simple operations that, when
performed (often recursively) in a specific sequence, describe how one collection can be
transformed into another. Thus, mappings are algorithmic in nature. Tasks which can be
accomplished with algorithms are considered to be computable (according to the Church-Turing
thesis). The attributes of computable functions include:
A computable function is defined for a certain input x and, when provided x as input and
after a finite sequence of arbitrarily many algorithmic steps, always ends with f(x) as
output. A mapping that maps collection A to collection B, given A, will always follow the
5

same process, execute an arbitrarily many, yet finite, number of operations, and always
map to collection B.
Input to a computable function is finite and arbitrarily large. Collections contain a finite
number of sub-collections and numbers, and are arbitrarily large.
Given defined input, a computable function uses a finite amount of storage space and
always terminates. However, there is no limit on the amount of space that can be used,
nor is there a time limit on termination. Mappings are outside of and not constrained by
time and space, and always terminate.
A computable function can be performed on a Turing machine equivalent computer. The
Turing machine is capable of performing complex calculations which can have arbitrary
duration and no predefined resource limits. The operations performed by mappings
(arithmetic operations, inserting, merging, deletion, concatenation) can all be performed
by a Turing machine.
Based on the above, mappings are computable and can be understood (again by the
Church-Turing thesis) as being analogous to finite algorithms that execute on a Turing machine
equivalent computer. More specifically, any finite computation that can be performed on a
Turing machine (the machine completes the computation and halts) can be (and therefore is)
performed by a mapping, and any mapping can be performed on a Turing machine. As to the first
assertion, note that both the input and output to the Turing machine are finite strings of ones and
zeros. Thus, there exist collections of identical strings, and there also exist mappings between
them. The later assertion is another way of saying that mappings are computable. Although
computable, mappings are not code and do not execute on computers. They, like everything that
exists, simply are.

Our Existence
While it may seem intuitively obvious that both ourselves and the universe we inhabit
exist, for our universe to exist it must be contained within a collection or collections. Like all
collections, these collections contain a finite number of sub-collections and numbers and are both
input and output to computable mappings. For our universe to exist, it must conform to the
constraints of finiteness and computability.
One such constraint would be on the space-time continuum. Should space and time be
infinitely sub-dividable with no smallest increment, it would not be possible to compute space
and time locations in a finite number of operations. Luckily for our existence, this does not
appear to be the case.
First, not having a smallest increment of time and space would create contradictions with
reality, captured most famously in Zeno's paradoxes. An arrow cannot travel a meter without
first traveling 1/2m. It cannot travel 1/2m without first traveling 1/4m, and so on. A person
cannot wait an hour without first waiting 1/2hr., cannot wait 1/2hr. without waiting 1/4hr., and so
on. Thus, without smallest increments it would not be possible for an arrow to travel any
distance or a person to wait any length of time. Of course, such things are possible, implying
smallest increments.
Also, there does appear to be a smallest increment of space and time. The Planck length is
the shortest measurable length, and the time it takes light to travel a Planck length is the shortest
measurable increment of time. So, with smallest increments, it is possible for space distances and
time durations to be represented in collections and computed by mappings in a finite number of
operations.
Another constraint is that the laws of physics must be computable. The laws of physics
are mathematical expressions and these expressions employ negative, complex, real, and
7

irrational numbers. These numbers can be represented in collections in various ways, but some
numbers, such as irrationals, have infinite precision and can only be estimated in a finite
collection, although the estimates can be arbitrarily precise. However, such numbers assume
continuous spaces. With a space-time continuum comprised of discrete smallest increments, it is
these irrational numbers that are estimates. The universe contains no perfect circles.
A third consideration is that the universe is not deterministic, but instead exhibits random
behavior. The specific outcome of certain events, such as the collapse of the wave function (or
decoherence, or whatever), cannot be predicted. Rather, the specific outcome will be randomly
selected from a finite list of possible outcomes (eigenstates), each with its own probability of
selection. Unfortunately, computable mappings are deterministic and cannot select outcomes at
random. However, there is no reason to believe that the probabilities are not discrete ratios, and,
if they are, mappings can produce a distribution of outcomes equivalent to random selection. For
example, if probabilities had at most five significant digits, then a mapping could accept as input
any sufficiently large collection of numbers between 0 and 99,999. This collection could then be
used as unit random numbers to simulate random selection and produce an equivalent distribution
of outcomes.
So, with no evidence proving otherwise, let's assume that it is possible for our universe to
exist. Since possible existence implies existence, there exists a collection or collections U which
we, from our perspective, perceive as the universe, as well as mappings that U results from.
Possible universe structures (U) and possible mappings (Nature) are discussed in the following
section.

Nature and the Universe

First, let's consider Nature as a recursive mapping that accepts a particular starting
instance of U, say Un, and recursively maps to an output sequence, Unn+m where each further
term of the output sequence is derived from the preceding terms. Since our universe is governed
by rules (the laws of physics), it would seem that the Nature mapping is likewise constrained by
these rules. That is, Nature conforms to the laws of physics and these laws are never broken.
Nature would apply these rules to each term in the sequence to produce the next term.
Regarding the structure of Un, it would be a smallest increment slice of space-time. Let's
arbitrarily consider Un to be a time increment. In that case, Un would include all necessary
information about every point in space at a time n for Nature to map Un to Un+1.
Since Unn+m is a collection sequence whose first term is the universe at time n and whose
last term is the universe at time n + m, it might seem that our universe must, at some point, reach
its end. While it is certainly true that every collection sequence contains a finite number of
terms, our universe does not end. Let Unn+m be a collection sequence whose last term is Un+m.
Then there exists a Nature mapping that accepts Un+m as input with output of Un+mn+m+m. Thus,
much like the "plus 1" mapping accepts any number as input, Nature could accept any universe
time instance term, Un, as input. Since it is possible Un could represent any point in time, then
there exists a recursive Nature mapping that, time-wise, starts at every possible time instance,
past, present, and future. There are infinitely many U collections, every one of them finite.
The earliest point in time for Un would be Un = U0. This would be the beginning of time,
the Planck Era, when the universe was one Planck length, contained one thing (a symmetric
force), and had one temperature (the Planck temperature). Of course, the laws of physics are
deterministic, except when they're not. Thus, in addition to an input sub-collection Un, an input
sub-collection that Nature can use as unit random numbers to simulate probabilistic events is also
9

needed. Let n and n + m be two points in time separated by m time increments, and let s be the
number of possible outcomes from all probabilistic events that could occur between time n and n
+ m. Then there would be at least s unique Unn+m collections, each the result of a Nature
mapping with a unique unit random number input sub-collection2.

Conclusion
Too often, attempts to explain our universe have had an unfortunate tendency to create
other things which must be explained. For example, in attempting to explain how a very small,
singular object (our universe at the time of the big bang) came into existence, theoretical
physicists hypothesized that our universe is but one universe in a multiverse of infinitely many
universes (whose existence must be explained). Some physicists have theorized that our universe
is the creation of a super-advanced civilization in another universe (whose existence again must
be explained). Attempting to explain the existence of something, whether universe or turtle, by
creating another something to explain is not very productive. Ideally, one should start from
nothing.
This paper, in explaining our existence, does start with nothing, with total undifferentiated
nothingness, the ain. From this comes the first concept, the concept that nothing and something
are distinctly different.
This something/nothing distinction defines existence. That is, an object can only exist if
there is a clear and complete distinction, or boundary, between the object and what is not the
object. This conceptual boundary both defines and contains the object. Some objects, called
elements, are considered solid and cannot contain other objects. Other objects are not solid and
can contain any finite number of other objects, although they can also be empty. Numbers are
2

Should your life be contained within this time sequence, all of your possible fates would be contained within the
collection that contained as sub-collections all of the unique Unn+m collections.

10

objects that can contain elements, and collections are objects that can contain both numbers and
other collections. Given two objects, they are either the same object or they are not. If they are
not the same object, then they differ in describable ways. Describing how two objects differ also
describes how they are related. Such difference relationships between collections, called
mappings, come part and parcel with collections. Mappings exist because collections exist. If
(and only if) it is possible for an object to exist, then it does exist. Thus, there are infinitely many
collections, and, because our universe is a possible collection, we exist.
So, from these assumptions our existence results. It may seem surprising that something
as vast and complex as our universe can result from these simple beginnings. However,
complexity does not arise out of greater complexity. Rather, complexity arises out of simplicity.
Complexity is simplicity compounded ad infinitum.
In some ways this explanation seems quite unsatisfactory. It is rather like assuming
"Romeo and Juliet" was written by an infinite number of monkeys infinitely banging typewriter
keys instead of by Shakespeare. It somehow seems more likely that something as complex as the
law of physics, the universe, and ourselves would be the result of intent rather than a random
outcome of infinite possibilities. Of course, it is possible that our existence is the result of intent.
A g/od Nature mapping could evaluate the outcomes of probabilistic events from multiple subcollections of unit random numbers and choose those that best achieve the objective of a universe
with stars, galaxies, and life. Much like a number can be the result of many mathematical
operations, a collection can be the result of many mappings. Since it is impossible to know the
mapping that our universe results from, we are free to take our pick. If one were to apply
Ockham's razor, however, it would be the simplest one.
Albert Einstein said that explanations should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler. So, is more explanation required? If collections and numbers are conceptual objects,
11

and if mappings are expressions of their relationships, then this begs an interesting question:
Who, or what, is conceiving these objects and expressing their relationships? Who, or what, is
considering the universe under consideration? Must we go further? No, not necessarily. There is
little point in conjecturing about the unknowable. Acknowledging that numbers, collections, and
mappings enjoy an existence "out there" and simply "are" is good enough. No need to over think
it.

12

About the Author

William McGarvey has a Master's degree in Mathematics from the University of Houston,
and a Ph.D. in Computer Information Systems from Nova Southeastern University. His email
address is wmcgarvey@gmail.com.

13