Necessity of Essence?

a dialectical analysis

It may be an interest on prioritization, which would have the greatest momentum in the working of the cosmos, essence as the a priori or pattern source for building or would the elements arise out of necessity and not a predetermined pattern? 

There will be a discussion on which is assessed as more effective. A brief analysis of whether there is an establishable reason that there needs be essence and whether there is a necessity for such.

Many in science hold that there is essence that patterns or precedes developments. More and more today, it is closely looked at what comprises essences and their component factors. In retrospect, it is often found that the presence of a development is not a given or result of a pattern. More things are found, some now feel, that concepts which were immutable are found subject to compositional combinations which accrete and which could not depend on just having some nature that exists a priori.

It evolves the desire to closely examine what are the patterns, concepts, laws really comprised of. It develops things are not the same through and through. Perhaps there is another way to look at the cosmos. What is it that necessitates these arbitrary perspectives? This breaks down to search for a determination whether some of the presumed essences, like matter, time, were indeed necessary in any comos. Were the essences immutable or not required for the function of a cosmos?

More and more, it is determined that the variety of elements in the cosmos are dependent on conditions on whether they arise or not and the duration is also dependent upon compositional factors and their duration. Not just preset patterns. It is more recognized now that elements are also dependent on interdependent, conditional organization for existence and any duration. This in turn begs the question whether the natures observed are more pliable and subject to whether the elements are required or necessary for a universe as opposed to arising to some predetermined pattern, constant, or law or parameters. It may be found that many of those are not an absolute essence for existence in a universe, like time, oxygen, matter. That a universe can function without some of them which had been taken for granted as being universal, and as they had been depicted in the past. In the early 1920's, Alexander Friedmann noted, "Thus, time is overthrown from its pedestal." To make time as an assistant in computations rather than a monolith.

This likely would then depict the development of a universe a being more subject to randomness, at least compared to European depictions of the 1700's, which then were less aware of the complexity of the universe and its elements. Examples: the then known planets were solid spheres which orbited in perfect circles around the sun; the visible lights of the night sky were all that was  of the universe, complete. Perceived natures then were treated as monoliths. Now are viewed as components.

Hence, even though it is said the current universe arose with its currently presumed elements included, this does not require or set precedence that any other cosmos would arise with the same elements as ours. In other words, there Is no evidence known that universes necessarily and unavoidably must have the same composition, and so there is no necessary essence that patterns universes. [If one wishes to see a review of the analysis process that is used here and on some other pieces, please view my entry on Dialectics.]

A conclusion to this brief query here would be that a priori essence is not a sustainable proposition since there is no necessity found for any compositional elements. In other words, an inability to establish a thoroughgoing incidence of necessity of the cosmos composition likewise foregoes positing any essence. 

Note: the material herein is not necessarily a reflection of entropy of current societies.