"IF The Big Bang Is True Then How.....?"

[mikkel_the_dane]

We aren't talking about the subjective (ie: between your ears). We are talking about reality (ie: what goes on outside of your head)
...
Reality isn't. Reality is objective. ie: it's workings doesn't depend on your opinions or emotions. Gravity doesn't care what side of the bed you got up this morning.
...

We are talking. You admit that as a fact. That means something subjective is going on between your ears. You are talking in between your ears about something outside both our ears.
So how does that work? It doesn't. That subjective idea between your ears that reality is objective can't leave your brain, because it is subjective and reality is objective.
So this is not going on, because we are exchanging subjective ideas through what is objective and that is not possible. You will not be reading this, because my thoughts can't reach you between your ears.

That is called reductive ad absurdum.

You have made 2 other posts. But I stop here for now. This is absurdum, Your model can't explain how we subjectively can communicate, because it is impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, science does a better job at the objective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective.

Right. Science deals with facts and religion and philosophy deal with opinions.

BTW "Science does a FAR better job" is subjective as for "FAR better". There is no objective referent for "FAR better". Learn to check of the subjective in yourself.

Actually, in this case, there *is* an objective referent: that the descriptions produced by science are testable and observations match the predictions. That is an objective standard and is what defines science.

The universe is in effect a combination of the objective and subjective.

No. You are confusing the universe with our psychology. Our *psychology* is a combination of objective and subjective. But the universe consists of the facts, which are, by definition, objective.

Second BTW - "...as if that means something" If it means something, it is subjective. You are not doing science there. You are doing this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge

Science can't tell you what is useful, but apparently you can with science do that. But you don't. You are subjective. To you science is useful. That is useful, is subjective.
To me science is differently useful than to you. That is in the relativism.

Science is not useful in setting goals. it is, however, often useful in achieving those goals. In particular, it is useful when those goals involve objective things.

So if I claimed that philosophy and religion are better than science, that was not my intention. Science is the best at the objective and the worst at the subjective. Philosophy, religion and I left out soft science and humaniora do a better job of the subjective, because they can deal with the subjective as subjective.

Right. And, again, like I said, science is good with facts (the objective), while religion and philosophy are good with opinions (the subjective).

 

[Polymath257]

We are talking. You admit that as a fact. That means something subjective is going on between your ears. You are talking in between your ears about something outside both our ears.
So how does that work? It doesn't. That subjective idea between your ears that reality is objective can't leave your brain, because it is subjective and reality is objective.
So this is not going on, because we are exchanging subjective ideas through what is objective and that is not possible. You will not be reading this, because my thoughts can't reach you between your ears.

That is called reductive ad absurdum.

You have made 2 other posts. But I stop here for now. This is absurdum, Your model can't explain how we subjectively can communicate, because it is impossible.

I have no idea why you consider this absurd. In fact, it is pretty clearly what happens.

We have subjective experiences. We also have the ability to manipulate objective things (our bodies, for example). This allows us to *encode* our subjective experiences by manipulating the objective universe. other people then observe those objective results and *decode* them into their own subjective experiences. This is called communication.

Not only is 'exchanging subjective ideas through what is objective' possible. It is common. ALL of language does precisely this.

Now, is this communication perfect? Clearly not. But it is usually good enough to exchange ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Actually, in this case, there *is* an objective referent: that the descriptions produced by science are testable and observations match the predictions. That is an objective standard and is what defines science.
...
No. You are confusing the universe with our psychology. Our *psychology* is a combination of objective and subjective. But the universe consists of the facts, which are, by definition, objective.
...

I have no idea why you consider this absurd. In fact, it is pretty clearly what happens.

We have subjective experiences. We also have the ability to manipulate objective things (our bodies, for example). This allows us to *encode* our subjective experiences by manipulating the objective universe. other people then observe those objective results and *decode* them into their own subjective experiences. This is called communication.

Not only is 'exchanging subjective ideas through what is objective' possible. It is common. ALL of language does precisely this.

Now, is this communication perfect? Clearly not. But it is usually good enough to exchange ideas.

Now I will start with something simple: I define Polymath257 to mean non-existent. I win, you don't exist, because that is the definition.
Could you stop believe that you can define the universe by believing that your words cause to the universe as such to be what your words are. That has a name, it is magical thinking. I define the universe to mean created by God.
Could you please stopping using, how definitions are used in math, as if you can do that on the universe. I define Polymath257 to mean non-existent. I win, you don't exist, because that is the definition.
This word game of yours is absurd.

So let us make this even more absurd. I have subjective experiences, that is an objective fact, because I am a part of the universe. So it is both subjective and objective.
Could we start over?!!

Please describe and explain how words work. I need your model of how words work in practice. Not your definition, your explanation!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Now I will start with something simple: I define Polymath257 to mean non-existent. I win, you don't exist, because that is the definition.
Could you stop believe that you can define the universe by believing that your words cause to the universe as such to be what your words are. That has a name, it is magical thinking. I define the universe to mean created by God.
Could you please stopping using, how definitions are used in math, as if you can do that on the universe. I define Polymath257 to mean non-existent. I win, you don't exist, because that is the definition.
This word game of yours is absurd.

But it is NOT a word game. It is how the words are used and what they mean. This isn't 'defining the universe'. This is defining the words we use to communicate with each other.

What you are trying to do is redefine the term 'existent'. But it already has a perfectly good definition which negates yours.

So let us make this even more absurd. I have subjective experiences, that is an objective fact, because I am a part of the universe. So it is both subjective and objective.
Could we start over?!!

Yes, it is an objective fact that you have subjective experiences. So what?

Please describe and explain how words work. I need your model of how words work in practice. Not your definition, your explanation!

Well, you seem to be using words reasonably well. And how do you use them? As an encoding of your subjective experiences and then as a method to communicate those to other people.

What you seem to be missing is the idea that we encode subjective experiences into objective motions or objects, which can then be decoded into other subjective experiences.

This is possible because we have sensory experiences that tell us something about the objective universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Yes, it is an objective fact that you have subjective experiences. So what?
...

Some words are subjective, in that what they are about, can't be encoded into the objective universe as the objective universe.

So here is a definition of objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So if I say that I like German WWII Tiger tanks, that is not objective. So how can it be objective, that I like Tiger tanks?

Here is another definition of objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
So that I like Tiger tanks, is also not objective in this sense of objective. So how can it be an objective fact, that I like Tiger tanks?

So what definition of objective do you use?

Regards
Mikkel

PS I am trying to show you, that there are subjective facts. That grin is a subjective fact.

PSS We are playing naive versus robust empiricism.

 

[Polymath257]

Some words are subjective, in that what they are about, can't be encoded into the objective universe as the objective universe.

So here is a definition of objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So if I say that I like German WWII Tiger tanks, that is not objective. So how can it be objective, that I like Tiger tanks?

Here is another definition of objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
So that I like Tiger tanks, is also not objective in this sense of objective. So how can it be an objective fact, that I like Tiger tanks?

It certainly *can* be objective: if everyone can see that you like tanks (given your behavior and obvious enjoyment of them), then it is an objective thing that you like tanks. Furthermore, if we can do a brain scan and find from such that you like tanks, it again becomes an objective thing that you like tanks.

So, yes, it can be an objective thing that you have a certain subjective experience.

Now, I would object to your definition in the sense that NOTHING is perceptible by *all* observers. However, we can modify this slightly to say that it is perceptible by all sane observers who are physically present and otherwise capable of perception.

So what definition of objective do you use?

Regards
Mikkel

PS I am trying to show you, that there are subjective facts. That grin is a subjective fact.

On the contrary, I see it as an objective fact that there are subjective experiences. But to be a *fact* means it is objective.

PSS We are playing naive versus robust empiricism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Now, I would object to your definition in the sense that NOTHING is perceptible by *all* observers. However, we can modify this slightly to say that it is perceptible by all sane observers who are physically present and otherwise capable of perception.
...

Perception:

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2. the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
   

You are conflating 1. and 2. into one.
Now please only using 1. explain conflating.

So here is the brutal, short and dirty test of objective versus subjective.
Take the word "gravity". Would gravity still be there if there were no humans?
Take the word "like" in "I like Tiger tanks". Would like still be there if there was no humans?

Gravity is objective and like is subjective. The first is an objective fact. The second is a subjective fact.
So here is that you do subjectively: "But to be a *fact* means it is objective." Now focus on "means". Would means still be there, if there were no humans. Now ask the same of facts.
Let me spell out for you: You have subjectively made a subjective rule, that facts according to your subjective rule can only be objective facts. But the joke is that, that your rule is not an objective fact. It is a subjective fact itself, because it is your subjective rule.
This is first year philosophy. When we talk about elephants, there are no elephants in our brains. When we talk about meaning, meaning is nowhere else than in our brains. Elephants are objective. Meaning, understanding, regarded, interpreted are subjective.

Now look up e-prime. And please do yourself a favor. Answer without using the verbs "be" and "exist" in all versions including "existence". Explain objective, subjective, the universe in e-prime. I mean it. Do it and you will learn something.
Rewrite e.g.: "But to be a *fact* means it is objective."

If you don't want to, I can do it for you. Be please try.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Perception:

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2. the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

You are conflating 1. and 2. into one.
Now please only using 1. explain conflating.

Someone conflates when others perceive them to muddy the discussion through irrelevant language use.

So here is the brutal, short and dirty test of objective versus subjective.
Take the word "gravity". Would gravity still be there if there were no humans?
Take the word "like" in "I like Tiger tanks". Would like still be there if there was no humans?

Well, if no human liked Tiger Tanks, then the whole issue would not arise. But, if you allow for this person to like Tiger Tanks, no other person needs to witness it for them to like Tiger Tanks. Alternatively, if a cat likes Tiger Tanks, that can be determined objectively as well. Alternatively, if a non-human intelligence witnessed their behavior, it would be possible to come to the conclusion that they like Tiger Tanks. That makes some aspect of it objective.

In the same way, objectively coronavirus is spreading. If you eliminated all humans, though, it wouldn't spread. So your criterion lacks specificity.

Gravity is objective and like is subjective. The first is an objective fact. The second is a subjective fact.
So here is that you do subjectively: "But to be a *fact* means it is objective." Now focus on "means". Would means still be there, if there were no humans.

If other intelligences use language, then yes.

Now ask the same of facts.
Let me spell out for you: You have subjectively made a subjective rule, that facts according to your subjective rule can only be objective facts. But the joke is that, that your rule is not an objective fact. It is a subjective fact itself, because it is your subjective rule.

But definitions are how language is used.

This is first year philosophy. When we talk about elephants, there are no elephants in our brains. When we talk about meaning, meaning is nowhere else than in our brains. Elephants are objective. Meaning, understanding, regarded, interpreted are subjective.

OK, but irrelevant. We agree on definitions of words to allow for conversation.

Now look up e-prime. And please do yourself a favor. Answer without using the verbs "be" and "exist" in all versions including "existence". Explain objective, subjective, the universe in e-prime. I mean it. Do it and you will learn something.
Rewrite e.g.: "But to be a *fact* means it is objective."

If you don't want to, I can do it for you. Be please try.

Regards
Mikkel

A pointless exercise eliminating an important verb.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
A pointless exercise eliminating an important verb.

So here we go: E-prime.
The universe, as the words go, work in the following manner: They requires brains or other relevant processes. Without such processes you could not have the words "the universe". The words as such carry meaning. The meaning connects to what the words refer to. So what does the words "the universe" refer to? Humans as parts of the universe and relevant relationships in regards to humans and the rest of what makes up the universe. The universe thus denotes a collection of relationships and how they work, including how words work, including the words "the universe". Without humans "the universe" would have no meaning. The meaning of words requires humans and all meaning happens in brains.

So now objective for its 2 meanings. First one the one about what goes on in brains: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. That requires brains and happens in brains as per of a person or their judgement.
Now the second meaning: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Now first the relevant part: independent of individual thought. That I like Tiger tanks, does not happen independent of my brain and it involves personal feelings or an opinion. "If I like Tiger tanks" do not meet the condition for neither objective in the one or other sense.

Now facts. A fact denotes something, where you remove the relationship to the rest of the universe. E.g. gravity as a part of the universe still forms a relationship to humans, otherwise we couldn't know or speak of it. You speak of it as in itself and omit the relationship. But the relationship still takes place otherwise you couldn't speak of it.
So what does an objective fact mean in the strong sense. It means something humans can't influence based on how they think and feel. Further they can't even do as they please when using their bodies. E.g. in relationship to gravity, I can't fly only using solely my body. I have to use other means, which I have to treat in a certain manner for it to work. I even have to treat my own body in a certain manner for it to work.

So there you go. I explained the words: The universe, objective and facts - using e-prime.
Now for subjective. It works as a relationship which involves processes in a given brain for which it can be different based on other processes in a given brain. I could choose to walk in one direction, change my mind and walk in a different direction. Of course dependent on being on firm ground, having mobility and so on.

Now inter-subjectivity and how words work between humans. A given human must learn a language by using it and thus learn to understand how it works for its meaning in given contexts. When 2 or more humans have learned the same language, they share a subjective understanding of the words in general.

See it works.
Now Polymath257, you can only know if something ends up being pointless if you test it. Now I stop using E-prime.
" A pointless exercise eliminating an important verb." Is that objective as not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts? No, it is subjective. Is it objective as independent of individual thought? No, it is subjective. So does "A pointless exercise eliminating an important verb." represent a fact? Yes, the fact that you subjectively think/feel " A pointless exercise eliminating an important verb." and that is not objective in either sense.
Could you please learn that all rules for science are inter-subjective and only deals with a limited part of the relationships in the universe?!! You can't magical make something subjective objective. If you could, you would be God.

All facts are not objective, because then we couldn't use the word "fact" and this is a fact, albeit an inter-subjective fact.

Now I am getting tried, that you don't understand, when you are subjective and play with words and declare them objective, because it subjectively suits you. You should know better.
So read both definitions:
-(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
That I like Tiger tanks, is not objective in either case and amounts to a contradiction: Like is not a personal feeling/opinion and is independent of individual thought.
Could you start read the words as they are written?
So how can, that I like Tiger tanks, be an objective fact, if it is not objective?

I know. Pick me. I know how to do. I claim it is objective, because it is so, because I say so. You subjectively declare that facts are objective, because you say so.
Stop using how you use definitions in math and science on everyday life. It doesn't work that way. You can't use defining words as to what ever suits you. You check, how the words work on the rest of the universe. You should know how to check that, since you claim, you can check, how the universe works.

Yes, I am not nice. But you are no different for this than some other humans, who think, that the world works as such based on, how they think. Start checking your own thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Take 2:

...

Well, if no human liked Tiger Tanks, then the whole issue would not arise. But, if you allow for this person to like Tiger Tanks, no other person needs to witness it for them to like Tiger Tanks. Alternatively, if a cat likes Tiger Tanks, that can be determined objectively as well. Alternatively, if a non-human intelligence witnessed their behavior, it would be possible to come to the conclusion that they like Tiger Tanks. That makes some aspect of it objective.

Yes, some aspect of it, but not all.

...
But definitions are how language is used.

Yes, but definition doesn't always define the universe. I define God to mean the creator of the universe, therefore God is the creator of the universe.
So if you define facts to be objective facts, you have to check your definition against, how facts work.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So now we hit the problem if this is a thing?
"This sentence contains words." Is that true as a thing? No, but it is true as a linguistic fact as inter-subjectively true for some brains and other processes, which can understand it.
Is 2+2=11 true in base 3? Yes, but it is not a thing and it is only true for some brains and other processes, which can understand it.
Is murder a form of killing, which is legally wrong? Yes, but it is only true as inter-subjectively true for some brains and other processes, which can understand it.
Is gravity a process? Yes, it is physically true and involves things.

So how many of these are objective facts? One, but all of them are facts. They just are conditionally true in different ways.

Now something about the verb "to be":
Gravity is a physical process.
The snow is white.
2 plus 2 is 4.
The definition of atheism in older dictionaries is, that atheism is amoral.
Drunken driving is illegal with a given alcohol level.
He is mistaking in his understanding of science.
To killing another human is wrong.
The universe is physical.

The "is" is not the same "is" as how it functions for the different sentences. That is the problem of the verb "to be".
Some people treat the function as the same for e.g. "He is wrong" as "The snow is white".
So for - the meaning of facts is, that they are objective, how does the verb "to be" function? Well, the first is linguistics, the second claims a property of facts: All facts are objective. I just have to test that and see, if I can get away with answering "no". No, not all facts are objective. See, I am still here. That is, how you test for subjectivity. If someone claims it is objective, you test, if you can do it subjectively otherwise.
All facts are objective - is a subjective fact and I know this, because I can answer "No!". And I don't die or something other horrible event. I am still here.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[leroy]

Sorry, what does it mean to be a 'requisite to exist'? Doesn't it ultimately mean that there is some law of physics that goes from one to the other?



Nope. it means that some human, working thruugh the laws of physics, was able to make a watch.



The curvature wouldn't exist except that the law of gravity produces a force and the laws of distortion produce the curvature.



Well, then it uses an incoherent concept of cause.



Yes, I do. To both. I think the definition is incoherent. The notion of 'requisite' is both useless (it ultimately means through some mechanism) and irrelevant (logical necessity isn't a form of causation).

Sure we can say that the laws (and not the ball) are the cause of the depression in the couch

It is still a fact that there wouldn't be a point where the laws existed and the depression didn't (therefore we have simultaneous cause and effect)

My point is that if you grant that the universe is infinite in to the past (which seems to be your view) necessarily you would have simultaneous cause and effect.

Not to mention that if b theory of time is true (which also seems to be your view) then all causes and effects would be simultaneous.

My point is that atleast under your view, the concept of simultaneous cause and effect is necessary. You can't deny it

 

[Polymath257]

Sure we can say that the laws (and not the ball) are the cause of the depression in the couch

It is still a fact that there wouldn't be a point where the laws existed and the depression didn't (therefore we have simultaneous cause and effect)

My point is that if you grant that the universe is infinite in to the past (which seems to be your view) necessarily you would have simultaneous cause and effect.

Not to mention that if b theory of time is true (which also seems to be your view) then all causes and effects would be simultaneous.

My point is that atleast under your view, the concept of simultaneous cause and effect is necessary. You can't deny it

Your analysis of the depression is wrong. The cause of the depression at one time is due to the action of the laws from the previous times. For example,if I suddenly life the ball, it takes time for the depression to disappear. If the causality was simultaneous, the depression would disappear instantly.

 

[leroy]

Your analysis of the depression is wrong. The cause of the depression at one time is due to the action of the laws from the previous times. For example,if I suddenly life the ball, it takes time for the depression to disappear. If the causality was simultaneous, the depression would disappear instantly.

Sure but if you remove the ball at “infinite past” the depression will also disappear at “infinite past”

Therefore there wouldn’t be a point time where the depression is there but not the ball. (therefore it woudl be simultaneus"

My point that the idea of infinite past, leads to the conclusion that simultaneous causality happens

 

[Polymath257]

Sure but if you remove the ball at “infinite past” the depression will also disappear at “infinite past”

Therefore there wouldn’t be a point time where the depression is there but not the ball. (therefore it woudl be simultaneus"

My point that the idea of infinite past, leads to the conclusion that simultaneous causality happens

There is no particular time that is the 'infinite past'. The phrase means that any time has a time before it. That is all.

 

[leroy]

There is no particular time that is the 'infinite past'. The phrase means that any time has a time before it. That is all.

Sure, but there wouldn’t be a point in time where the ball is not there and the depression would exist, therefore the cause and effect would be simultaneous, (they occurred at the same time),


Not to mention that under the b theory of time (which seems to be your view) all events are simultaneous, this would imply that all causes would be simultaneous to their effects. I honestly do see how can you sustain your world view (infinite past, b theory of time etc.) and claim that the concept of simultaneous cause and effect is incoherent. The way I see it, your world view requires simultaneous causation to be possible.

But anyway, do you have any good arguments against the concept of simultaneous cause and effect?(the cause and the effect occurring at the same point?

 

[night912]

Sure, but there wouldn’t be a point in time where the ball is not there and the depression would exist, therefore the cause and effect would be simultaneous, (they occurred at the same time),


Not to mention that under the b theory of time (which seems to be your view) all events are simultaneous, this would imply that all causes would be simultaneous to their effects. I honestly do see how can you sustain your world view (infinite past, b theory of time etc.) and claim that the concept of simultaneous cause and effect is incoherent. The way I see it, your world view requires simultaneous causation to be possible.

But anyway, do you have any good arguments against the concept of simultaneous cause and effect?(the cause and the effect occurring at the same point?

Under the conditions of this scenario, there are no cause and effect. The ball did not cause the depression because the depression was always there. And the ball is not the cause because there is no event that requires it as the cause. The ball and the depression both exist simultaneously, but neither was the cause or the effect of the other.

 

[Polymath257]

Not to mention that under the b theory of time (which seems to be your view) all events are simultaneous, this would imply that all causes would be simultaneous to their effects.

No, that is a serious misunderstanding of the B theory of time, which states that the past, present, and future are equally real, NOT that they are simultaneous.

I honestly do see how can you sustain your world view (infinite past, b theory of time etc.) and claim that the concept of simultaneous cause and effect is incoherent. The way I see it, your world view requires simultaneous causation to be possible.

Because the laws of physics have a directionality. Causes come before effects in time: effects happen in the future light cone of the causes.

But anyway, do you have any good arguments against the concept of simultaneous cause and effect?(the cause and the effect occurring at the same point?

Well, what does it mean to be a cause of some effect? It means that if the cause is an initial condition, then the laws of physics produce the effect at a later time.

 

[leroy]

Well, what does it mean to be a cause of some effect? It means that if the cause is an initial condition, then the laws of physics produce the effect at a later time.

I would disagree with what you said with the B theory of time, but ok…

1 Well in that case God (or whatever the cause of the universe, time and the laws of physics is) wouldn’t be constrained by time and the laws of physics.

2 I don’t see any logical incoherence which the statement “God decided to create time at he same point in which time began to exist (t=0)…….. (or in any case feel free to change God, for “timeless strings” “timeless quantum stuff” or whatever the cause of the universe and time might be.) I don’t see any logical incoherence there.

3 Even assuming that time, the universe, and/or the laws have always been there, I don’t see why necessarily there has to be a “then” between the cause and the effect. ( this seems to be true if we use this using this definition of cause………….. “X” if the cause of “Y” if “Y” requires “X” to exist Such that Y wouldn’t exist without X

 

[Polymath257]

I would disagree with what you said with the B theory of time, but ok…

1 Well in that case God (or whatever the cause of the universe, time and the laws of physics is) wouldn’t be constrained by time and the laws of physics.

In which case, using the terminology of causality would be incorrect. Causality only makes sense within the context of constraining laws.

2 I don’t see any logical incoherence which the statement “God decided to create time at he same point in which time began to exist (t=0)…….. (or in any case feel free to change God, for “timeless strings” “timeless quantum stuff” or whatever the cause of the universe and time might be.) I don’t see any logical incoherence there.

That is because you are missing the aspect of 'create' that requires time.

3 Even assuming that time, the universe, and/or the laws have always been there, I don’t see why necessarily there has to be a “then” between the cause and the effect. ( this seems to be true if we use this using this definition of cause………….. “X” if the cause of “Y” if “Y” requires “X” to exist Such that Y wouldn’t exist without X

But that is *never* the case except for when a law of physics is relevant. In fact, a statement of the form 'Y requires X to exist' is itself a law of physics (if true). And all such requirements in physics are of the form 'if Y happens at one time, then X happens at a later time'.