Reflections on three layers model
On time, the abstract-concrete problem, and the progression of abstraction
In the layered model: God → Mathematics → Universe, a problem seemingly arises. If time exists solely within the context of the Universe, then where would God obtain time to create mathematics, which was then used to create the Universe? Being outside of time, it's impossible to perform these actions in a specific sequence.
First and foremost, it's not about creating mathematics in the sense of bringing something separate into existence—mathematics is the form that God assumes. Moreover, mathematics does not require time to exist—it exists beyond time and space. Therefore, there is no paradox here. God, existing outside of time, takes the form of mathematics, which also exists beyond time. Only through mathematics does God take the form of the Universe, that is, a dynamic mathematical structure. Along with the Universe, what we call time comes into being. That's why I do not believe in the block universe model, where time is merely an illusion.
At the same time, the concept of layers solves another problem I've been pondering for a long time: how could an abstract God create something concrete like our Universe? What mechanism underlies this? Is it even possible? I call this the abstraction-concrete problem. Using terminology from Spinoza's philosophy, it can be rephrased: how does natura naturans give rise to natura naturata? What is the relationship between them?
(The problem of the relationship between the abstract and the concrete has always seemed interesting to me. However, I believe that metaphysicians have not devoted sufficient attention to it thus far. For example, I have always been puzzled by how, in Schopenhauer's system, the chaotic, mindless Will could give rise to a Universe that, mathematically speaking, is a true gem. It's a bit like claiming that a four-year-old formulated a correct theory of quantum gravity.)
In the layered model, the concreteness of our Universe is merely a manifestation of our internal perspective—looking at the Universe from within. Objectively speaking, however, its nature is entirely mathematical, and its essence entirely abstract. The Universe is a dynamic mathematical structure.
When I speak of the mathematical nature, I mean that fundamentally all properties of the Universe are mathematical—they are expressible through formulas and measurable relationships. For example, atoms are not concrete building blocks of the world but structures of a fully mathematical nature, and as such are abstract. If they seem concrete to us, it's due to the Pauli exclusion principle—two atoms cannot occupy the same space, which is why we don't pass through walls or sink into the Earth. Similarly with colors, which give the world a sense of reality. In essence, colors are merely sensations created in the brain in response to electromagnetic waves of different frequencies. What are electromagnetic waves? Disturbances propagating in the electromagnetic field. And what is the electromagnetic field? It is not something tangible or concrete but abstract, and the only way we know to describe it is by using the language of mathematics.
One more thought: the layers can be seen as a progression of abstractness. We start from a completely abstract God (or Substance, Essence). Then we move to mathematics, which is still abstract but more tangible since we encounter it every day in our Universe. Our Universe, in turn, appears to us as fully concrete, although we might suspect that this is merely a manifestation of our particular perspective—as observers looking at it from within.
Sponsored by: Wiadomości giełdowe GPW