It is a relational world, a relative world, there is no other possiablity, even reducing it down to the simplist form of subject and object, the relation between these two, gives you apparent reality. Reality is relational.
Hi Boagie, we've not exchanged ideas before, so I want to let you know that while I'm going to use some of your concepts to present a different point of view, it's not because I object to your perspective. I do, however, think you make a number of illogical or unsupported points that lead to an unjustified conclusion that "reality is relational." My main objection to relativism is, overall, that as a theory there is no way to escape infinite regress.
A mistake I think you make right off is when you say, "there is no other possibility, even reducing it down to the simplest form of subject and object." It might not seem apparent at first, but that is an anthropomorphic statement. There is no reason to assume the "simplest form" includes a subject and an object, unless that is, you assume because we humans exist as observers (thus requiring an object of observation), that decides all reality must include an observer and an observed.
Nor is there reason to assume what is most simple has "form" at all, and a very good reason for believing that if there is something non-relative, it is formless (I'll explain why below).
Science has for some time searched for that substance from which all things are made, only to find that, under their microscopes what they see is form without substance, meaning I think that it is all energy.
Yes, but what you fail to factor in is, why should we assume our observation tools (microscopes, et al) can see their own essence? If microscopes, eyes, etc. are made of something most simple, then our detection devices are less subtle than the essence that makes them up; that is, form is trying to detect formlessness, and so we might expect form to fail.
I doubt however for our purposes you could point to something in being and claim it is made out of a single substance, and then you have to consider the conditions under which it is in being, its context, just as there is no such thing as a closed system, so to there is no object/thing which is not supported by its context, a fish out of water is quite another thing than the fish in water. Certainly if you wish to deny the relational nature of all things as entities, you cannot deny the relational nature of all things to their context. If indeed things were not relational, there would be no science of physics, for there would be nothing to discern.
Here you mix subjects. If we are talking about "things," as the author of this thread did state, then of course they must exist within the context they are relative to. But you took this discussion toward the idea of an absolute essence by interpreting the idea of "is everything relative" to mean all that exists. So we moved from "things" to all that exists, and those are two different subjects.
Consider also, your argument is coming from a multicellular organism, who could not exist without this concept, the coevolution of species with their environment, the coevolution of species in general, there might have been this independence of being within the primordial pool, before the concept arose that life lives upon life, but, even in that primordial pool these single celled organisms were dependent upon the context of their environment. Again I ask you upon what principle would you stake your claim for independent existence?
This is again anthropomorphic. Why must essential existence have anything to do with biological (i.e. "form") existence? You are limiting existence to relative situations, and then claiming your own arbitrary-decided limitations determine how reality is.
I doubt however for our purposes you could point to something in being and claim it is made out of a single substance.
I repeated this statement because it is just plain wrong. A lot of people have suggested a single substance, from Spinoza's brilliant thinking on "substance monism" to Bertrand Russell's idea of "neutral monism." Check out: Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The reason for looking for another answer outside physics is due to how strange things seem from the science perspective. It seems absurd that creation would be made of nothing, yet at this time that appears to be where things stand with physics. Instinct tells us that if a thing exists then it is composed of one or more substances. After finding an unusual-looking rock, for example, a natural inclination is to wonder if it's made of quartz or mica or feldspar. We can speak more basically of its atomic makeup, and next we can ask what are atoms made of; if the answer is quarks, then what are they made of, and so on. If our reduction were never able to reach a ground state
other than variables, then existence would be foundationless.
Infinite regress and a slew of other traditionally pesky modeling issues (such as dualism) can be resolved if all existence (i.e., literally, everything that has, does or can exist) is made out of and grounded in an absolute, uncaused foundational substance that is subject to basic foundational conditions; in such a model the foundational substance is generally unevolved, and is neither physical nor mental but can become either because it has the potential to be made to spontaneously evolve by the basic foundational conditions.
"Absolute" in the foundational context refers to the most deep-seated level of existence possible, the bottom line, that from which all things arise and return, and of which all existence is composed; and "uncaused" simply means it was never created, has always existed, actually cannot not exist and so forever will exist. Necessary too is that this most foundational level of existence is some kind of "stuff," the most subtle substance, that resides in an infinite ocean/continuum and is part-less or homogeneous.
The concept of ground state "conditions" is vitally important to understand for substance monism modeling to make sense; it means in addition to one substance having absolute essence-like qualities which composes every "thing" that did, does and will exist, as a volume the ground state substance must also exhibit dynamics or behaviors
(similar to how we might say an essence-like quality of water is wetness, but one of its behaviors as a volume of water is to produce waves, eddies, etc.). Without volume dynamics in the ground state substance ocean there would be no change factors and therefore no means for a single, homogeneous ground state substance to evolve itself into new forms (such as our universe).