Chaos

The origins of the following philosophical question come from the Age of Enlightenment when aristocratic nobles and priests began to challenge the established tradition of truth that was the foundation and justification for the churches and states of Europe. Prior to the advent of Galileo's heretical discoveries about the nature of the cosmic bodies, the a priori for existence was the divine. Specifically, nature was the way it was because God willed it so. During the Enlightenment, that interpretation of nature would see its end, and new empirical forms of truth-searching would ascend. Today, we call those forms; science. However, this transition from the divine to empiricism left a void in the question: why is there something rather than nothing, or why is there anything at all? This is because although the new enlightenment thinkers were divorced from the divine command assumption, they were still married to the idea of an ultimate truth that could be unveiled and definitively explained. Perhaps it is that assumption that has acted as a blindspot to the true definition of nothing, and to what that definition implies about ultimate reality. This paper aims to arrive at a definition of nothing that deviates from a perfect causal reason for reality, and in doing so, argues that the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the logical definition for nothing is chaos, or that nothing must by deduction exclude any law or causal origin which makes it necessarily chaotic in nature.