A Perspective on Life

We perceive life as individuals by taking part in an universal experience from different positions in space, causing differences in perspective. These different perspectives cause conflicts and contradictions in our definition of the truth, i.e. the actual motion of the parts that compose the universe. The correct perspective to maintain is that which accurately describes the motion of the universe’s parts. However, due to physical and practical limitations, we must condense explanations to only relay significant information, or what we arbitrarily consider significant information. The substance of truth is usually lost when it is separated from the whole truth. And as the whole truth requires describing all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur, it is impossible to know. Granted our situation, we do not need to know every detail of the universe, only what is necessary. What is necessity or necessary is another question for a later time.

Personal beliefs are dependent on the nature of a particular perspective. The mind’s cognitive capabilities are not unlimited. We are able to focus on one matter at a time. For, to perform an action accurately and quickly, the whole course of motion must be seen as a single movement. But, since the process of actualizing an idea or goal requires forethought(granted we are speaking of a rational being actualizing an idea or goal), we can only think of known phenomena, and adapt ourselves to any anomalies. This causes a disharmony in the mind, because the mind must stop its initial mental movement, that which formulated a plan of action, to mend external disunity(i.e. disunity of the mental perception of the world and the world as it is in of itself). For an anomaly is just an unconsidered event. All anomalies than become known phenomena and are assimilated to known knowledge when they occur. But, dealing with them at the time of the occurrence requires we divert our attention from our main goal to a novel problem.

More Thoughts on Free-Will

We ought to live our lives according to reason, which is a limit on the will, yet a necessary one. Everything in existence operates and persist through reason. I’m not saying every object comes into being for a reason (I’m not promoting a god), but for the most part, every object must abide by universal laws, and this is a limit on what we call the will, and on the possible actions in which the will can actualize. Will is the act or process of using or asserting one’s choice; volition. But we all know that there are limited options for us which to choose from. I can not fly to the sun and walk on it simply because I will it. The desire to act is not alone sufficient enough for an action. The ability to perform the action which we desire, materials which to act on, and a space which to act in are all necessary components of any option the will contemplates. We can only do what is rational and logic. No one can square a circle because it is an illogical action, therefore impossible; and even if it becomes possible to do so, there must be a reason and logic process for it having the capacity to be a possible object.

We also know every action demands a reaction and a cause, does free-will not necessitate this principle? It is impossible to kill a man, but by the free-will of either the killer or the victim to not want the outcome to be death, not have the man die. No freedom is unrestrained freedom, it is all based on qualifiers and contingencies. If you are living under a government, then you can bet your freedom is limited by law. If you are not living under a government, but are alive, then you are still not absolutely free, as the body necessitates that you obtain certain materials (air, food, water, sleep) to continue your living state. People say “god is good” which means it doesn’t have the option to be evil, which is a limitation on this being’s power and free-will. Our ignorance of the future forces us to make uncertain decisions, resulting in consequences not always desired by the will, again limiting the will’s freedom and spoiling its intended results. And if we knew the future perfectly, then we would have no will, for the future would be absolute and decided, the only choice the will would have is the determined performance which the future dictates.

We do have a will which can make a particular choice out of a set of options. But, this will is not free, as the options are not unlimited, making the choices limited. I think the confusion is due to equating the will with desire, instead of equating the will with reason. Our desires are many and nearly limitless, but our reason is founded on knowledge obtained; reason bases its determinations on the role we play in the world and the limits our actions possess, rather than on our desires and ultimate wants, for even these must subject themselves to reason to be obtained (for no one has wants without a reason for wanting what they desire).

Imagine that the will of A can choose from one to an infinite amount of options. A can only choose ONE out of infinite choices, for even if A could choose ALL the choices, this should be the destruction of A, as there must be a conflict between, at least, two of the infinite options; because conflict must also be an option in an unlimited set of options. Or imagine the scenario, A has B, C, and D, but not H, I, or J, therefore A can not choose the options which necessitate H, I, or J; this makes the infinite choices limited, not only to one choice, but now to choices which can only be chosen by an A that has B, C, and D; and we don’t even know if there are A’s with only one out of B, C, and D; nor if it would limit the choices of A further. Is there really a logical way to have a will, such as that of A, which is fully and without any restraint free to choose any and all forms of being and action without a single pair contradicting each other? Such a will would need to destroy the operation of negation in logic itself. What kind of world would exist without any negation at all?

Thinking of Aristotle's Thoughts

If I follow the logic principles which Aristotle suggested, I find it quite easy to perceive the universe having an actual existence, perhaps too easy, which is where doubt sets in and the problems begin. Simply put, the laws of logic proposed by Aristotle are as followed. The first principle Aristotle proposed is the law of identity, meaning whatever is, is itself. We may not know exactly, in great detail, what an object is, but our knowledge of any object must yield to what that particular object actually is. It is the basic definition of a falsehood to claim an object to be whatever we maintain it in our minds to be, without any justification or evidence whatsoever as to what an object is in itself. The second principle is the law of non-contradiction, which basically states that no object can both be and not be in the same space at the same time. This principle is logic’s most basic guard against absurdity, in my opinion, as we may imagine an object flickering in and out of existence in our minds, but can not say the object is maintaining an existence that both is existence and is not existence at the same time in the same space. The final principle is the law of excluded middle, which basically means all knowledge should be pushed to its utmost limit. When defining what a man is, we should include every single characteristic that makes up a man, in particular or in general(which is just another characteristic of that particular piece of knowledge). As every piece of knowledge is of something, the law of excluded middle needs only two objects, that which knows of a thing and the thing known, knowledge is a correlation between the actual object and the notion of the object in the knower’s mind. But, it seems impossible for there not to be a middle point, as we know of objects through our senses, and understand their significance through the use of language or mental images.

These principles are said to be the laws of thought, but whether they pertain only to thought, or to reality itself, seems to me to be a trivial matter, as I can not think past my own thoughts. Is it possible to know anything without it passing through one’s thoughts? Even our subconscious presents itself to us from time to time, in dreams or moments of enlightenment. All knowledge must be that of actual objects, or ideas in one’s mind.

These laws have left me with this argument concerning the universe, or the extent as to what our minds are able to comprehend.

1. Non-existence can not exist.

2. Non-existence contradicts existence.

3. Everything in existence, and everything in our minds, existence in some space at some time.

4. Non-existence doesn’t existence in any space nor in any time.

5. Therefore non-existence can not exist.

In my mind there could never be such a object or presence as absolute nothing. A thing may be able to not exist in a certain place or in a certain time, but there is something in every point of existence. I think people throw the term “nothing” around very often, and it does serve a utility, but we should never us the term “nothing” when speaking general and intelligibly about the universe, where it is impossible that nothing should ever exist in its absolute form(complete non-existence).

(Footnotes: These thoughts are definitely in need of more evidence and more proofs. But as far as logic is concerned, I perceive such principles to be a adequate start.)

On Evil

“Some art of mensuration is required in order to show us pleasures and pains in their true proportion. This art of mensuration is a kind of knowledge, and knowledge is thus proved once more to be the governing principle of human life, and ignorance the origin of all evil: for no one prefers the less pleasure to the greater, or the greater pain to the less, except from ignorance.” ~Plato

Evil Is normally understood by most people in the context of the biblical representation of badness or wickedness, in other words, evil is equivalent to sin or the devil. This is of course a very vague way of identifying evil, as sin and the devil are not innate representations in the mind. The closes representation we have to identifying or relating to evil is our notions of pain and pleasure, as most people would consider pain, either physical or mental harm, to be the expression or representation of evil. For, other than the Bible’s notion of evil, we have other myths and doctrines that present their own idea of evil, but all lead back to our notion of pain and pleasure.

If life were purely pleasant, i.e. all affections on the brain resulted with pleasure, then there would be no way of identifying evil, wickedness, deficiency, inadequacy, imperfection, harm to the body, degradation, etc. and the like. For instance, if the happening of losing an arm resulted with a pleasant sensation, lets say every animal had a feeling of bliss from what we presently consider as pain, it is impossible, for me at least, to imagine animals not willingly doing harm to themselves for the mere sake of receiving pleasure. Much of a living thing’s actions are dictated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and even the more intelligent creatures must start with this demeanor. Death itself would be but a joke to all living things without pain, which we perceive it to be the opposite. We would not be able to say that killing another living being was a terrible act without pain; because there would be no discomfort to either the victim nor to anyone who valued the victim’s life, nor any hope of empathy from the murderer. Clearly, whatever moral doctrines are presented to the mind, must find their foundations in the innate mental ideas of pleasure and pain.

Yet, good and evil can not be merely viewed as a pursuit of pleasure(being good) versus an avoidance of pain(being evil). The reason being that other animals do base their actions on a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain, yet it is only with ourselves that we label certain actions as moral and others as immoral. If a lion kills another lion, it is viewed simply as the actions performed by an animal, but if a man kills another man, it is murder. Now without going too deep into detail, I can only perceive the most significant difference between a lion and a man to be that of intelligence, which was probably not so clear during ancient times, but is undeniably obvious in today’s world, with our clear advances in technology and the unmistakable environment which a man lives in compared to that of other animals. Thus, like Plato, I believe morals and ethics begin and end with knowledge. For it is also clear that other intelligent creatures have some notion of ethical actions, as shown by science.

No one is innately evil, every being is a product of their circumstances, this is a notion i believe is extremely important. It sickens me that many religions would have humans believe that they are not in control of their own actions, they are incapable of performing virtuous actions through their own abilities, and that everyone is evil who does not comply with their particular group. We are born with innate abilities, but not innate intentions, notions, and ideas. No human has shown an inborn disposition to do evil, whom has not also shown a pathological incapacity, which indicates an imperfect and undeveloped mind or brain. However, instead of an opposition to that which is undoubtedly evil, religions manage to put good people in conflict with each other, as the human race is no longer separated into those who can do and those who need help, but into those who comply and those who do not. What is good and evil is quite ambiguous, it is our relations with each other that give these ideas concreteness. Those who put themselves above all others, but not due to more beneficial and efficient notions of the world, rather through dubious and problematic traditions, are committing a great evil.

If a God was the one to dictate universal rules, it should be impossible to break them. This seems to be the case for life in general, that no being can go against the rules dictated by logic; such as the rules that guide physics, biology, and chemistry; though we are still working on these concepts. Actions that are logically impossible can not be performed, no matter how much we wish or will illogical actions to be done. Yet, immoral actions can be performed merely by us willing these actions. Why would we be incapable of performing actions that are logically impossible, when we willfully want to perform them, yet have unenforced laws opposing particular actions that can still be performed regardless, even though no sane person willfully desires immoral actions? If a God exist, it is certainly preventing particularly extraordinary and supernatural actions by force from being actualized, such as a human beings having the ability to move faster than the speed of light using only our legs. If such a divine being is allowing immoral/evil actions to be done, but is punishing those who do it, even though clearly no immoral action is done willingly(because an insufficiency in the mind or circumstances of a creature always leads to an immoral action, but no immoral action is done for the mere end of doing evil itself; it’s always to avoid pain or pursue pleasure), such a being would be completely unreasonable and unjust. I can not believe in a world where an unreasonable ruler reigns over all, especially since science and logic demonstrate a rather justified and principled existence.

On the Existence of Cognition

If there be a thing that is cognitive, in which case I merely mean that that word is seen in many places and widely known, then I would assert that there be two objects that exist from which cognition can be manifested. These two objects are the Personal and the Logical.

The Personal is a manifestation created by physical objects, viz. matter/energy. It is an object that evolved over extended periods of time. For we are something large which was spawned by something small. The core of the developed human is the brain. The brain has various functions, generally speaking the brain organizes information. The result of organized information is Logic.

This piece of information is obtained by the utilization of Logic. Logic is an affirmation of information. The universe is mere information organized in a particular way at any given moment. Humans, being a spontaneity in the universe, and not the universe itself, may never possess the minute knowledge of the Summa Genera. However, one need not know the whole Summa Genera, but only knowledge that is complimentary to one’s own conditions. Logic is the highest point of which this information can go, granted one has information and can communicate it to others.

The brain is not created to know everything in the universe. It is a mechanical object found in a body. The body is spawned by the universe, and the cause of the brain; for all living creatures have bodies, but not all have brains, or at least only humans have high cognitive functionality. Cognitive abilities only allow for a glimpse at the Summa Genera. One must consider ones own limitations when utilizing Logic, for that may become a required response.

On the Mind

“Mind” is that which we consider the model of our world. Many people will describe this in various was. The few manners in which I have heard it described as is; that point from which we observer the world, the self, the ego, me/I, the spirit/soul, consciousness, awareness, life, human, and many other phases. For me, it is an action, or performance, or feeling, or reaction of some kind. It is something i do, something i have or am given or perceive, or know about. It has shown me many things, of which i think about, or contemplate, or make judgments about. That of which i judge or contemplate is the world, the universe, I/me, or God. What then is the problem? If one considers it all one thing, then one need not fall into disputes.

The problem may then be what ought we to do with it? These sets of mechanics, which are used to create, manifest, or actualize certain events, are what we utilized when forming our world model. Each model has its own particular explanation, but one is sufficient enough to continue. Conflict will always occur in the various descriptions of how mind is used exactly; whether it is physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological manifestations, or psychological entities. And if God be the source of my power, then it only could control, or generate my movements and actions. The question still remains what ought we to do?

Regardless what we are there is a quantitative state to this existence we call the Mind. At the very least there is one thing, or nothing. But, frequently, there is more than one thing, i.e. something else is involved in the manifestation of the Mind. What ought we to do with the mind could depend on a multitude of objects. I describe it as an undeniable force from any object mentioned thus far.

I hope these arrangements of words can be of some practical use, though much contradiction exist amongst them. More or less could be said of this. One could understand the basic idea; the argument would be on particulars beyond this theoretical position.

Categories of Existence IV

The fifth category of existence is time. Time is the structure of motion. Being actual objects in space, we are all subject to time, but due to a time dilation, we do not know what actual time is. The dilation may come from being a conscious being coming into existence, because an environment must exist prior to the existence of a conscious being, resulting in time dilation between objects in space and space itself. There is also the problem of seeing all events from a single perspective because each conscious being is quantified as a single observer. Each observer perceives motion from different positions in space, but no two observes can occupy the same position in space at the same time, since they are not existentially the same objects. In any case, the primary reality all objects in space are contained in is existence, therefore all objects are the result of the first motion that existed in space. From this we can conceive of a real beginning of time for all objects in space. Though no being can know for certain what the first motion of existence was, we can perceive a continuous motion in phenomena using the laws of cause and effect, the main premise being that all causes are prior to effects. However, this only concerns real objects, therefore real time concerns motions of objects and phenomena that are results of an unknown first cause or first motion in existence, I call this time real time.

Real time isn’t an idea or concept, it is the current state of existence, a constant alteration of forces throughout space. Real objects exist in nature and are known by their harmonious interactions, harmonious in the sense that no object defies the laws of physics. Limitations provided, all objects thus become connected in space and, while remaining separate objects, maintain one motion from cause to effect. Real time is the connections of motions operating in sequences, every motion is necessarily followed by or prior to another motion. Connection between objects and motions occur because of locality, mainly no object can go out of existence; objects can only move in existence or alter their current existential states, meaning all objects are interacting in the same space. This connection between objects in real time, because of their connection in the same space, leads to a more practical time for conscious beings, a time that is started from particular points in existence, a division of real time into parts known as relative time.

The more typical time we refer to is relative time, which are motions following that of the first motion. Actual time, first motion to current motions in existence, can not be known without tracing all real objects causes back to a prime motion. As this is virtually impossible, because an effect can be the cause of another effect but not the cause of its own cause, there’s no way to realistically go back to the first motion. Therefore, an observers beginning of time, as a quantity and motion, is where the observer’s first reference of observation began, or where the object which is being observed first entered perception, leading to whatever the current structure of motions are.

(Footnote: It is not difficult to understand what time is if space and motion are understood. Time is the ever flow of motion and interacting forces. This is also a more metaphysical view of time rather than a measurable view that clocks refer to. Measurable time is relative time as depicted by an observer. There maybe no way to prove an actual measurable point in time to have a real time clock. It would require a model of the beginning motions which occurred in existence leading to current motions, such a task would require a large amount of proof and calculation. And the motions that first took place in existence must have cosmological or particle physics origins, assuming the forces necessary must have been to an extremity in nature.)

Objects in Space

Upon some reflective thinking it became obvious to me that no object or phenomena has the ability to exist without relation to another object or phenomena. Solitary existences can’t be a possible occurrence. For everything that exist, or that has the potential to exist, must exist in the domain of existence. However, existence itself must be given form and dimension by the objects which exist, therefore existence must be a feature related to all objects and phenomena. How exactly can all objects be related to each other?

All things are related in time and space, practically speaking. For all real objects are immersed in space, this seems obvious in the fact that no object or phenomena can be created from nothing. For any object to come into existence a combination of objects or entropy of an object are needed. This seems to be a consequence of merely existing and impossible to withstand. Objects come together in “time,” the sequence of motions in a phenomena, for phenomena are dynamic. This is important to realize when speaking of beings, for all beings must come into existence through a process in time.

All objects being in necessity of other objects for their coming into being would mean all objects must come from or be apart of an antecedent object or phenomena. Take A as the main substance of space, since space is either unbounded or bounded, and can only exist in reference to an object; an object must be a kernel in space, because space with no object is a form of non-existence. Now, space as such will engulf substance A, also substance A must exist in time. Substance A can only be perceived through some change in the mental affairs of an observer; and only as “in time” if substance A produces direct effects to its surrounding. Such a case would conclude in substance A producing substance B, this occurring in time, assuming substance A is going through some sort of process in space; this process being some alteration in substance A. Substance B, being produced by substance A, would be related to substance A in space and time; this meaning the only thing separating substance A and substance B is distance and motion, motion being whether they are moving away or towards each other in time. Such is the way objects are related to each other in space and time.

(Footnote: I would guess substance B would be a smaller or “anti” version of substance A. I assume this only because all change must be a significant alteration, and the only significant alteration to a singularity is its polar opposite; in this case substance B is the polar opposite of the singularity substance A)

Concerning The Universe and A Little Science

Based on my current knowledge of my existence, I am left to conclude that the creatures on this planet are the only developed life forms in what we call “the universe.” The universe is our limit on existence; considering existence is bounded only by those who exist. We are able to trace our causation back to a biological source, this allows us to assume the premise that we do indeed exist. Thus is the case for all other existing material; all leading back to physics, the awareness and understanding of force. Our scientific knowledge has far advanced past those of our ancestors. But considering that our ancestors are the only beings that we are able to compare knowledge with; our technology doesn’t surpass any natural bounds; and our many uncertainties, it is safe to assume that control over ones own existence is rather difficult. Restrictions on science, mainly those caused by lack of practicing individuals, won’t allow for any true perception of our existential limits. Thus we will not know how vast of a dimension the universe is. We do have a clear idea of the difficulties however, and the known facts alone compel me to conclude that there are no supremely advanced organisms in our universe.

(Footnote: I consider a supremely advanced organism to be one with clear and precise information on existence. Obviously any information can be expressed by any organism simply through interaction. But, any “advanced” creature would possess an actual science, knowledge of specific methods that actualize specific ends. Such knowledge isn’t seen in less developed species, in fact we are the only species who possess an transcendental understanding of existence; all other creatures on this planet have a general understanding but not a complex one concerning the universe. We, however, aren’t what i would call “supremely advanced” because of our lack of freedom concerning our actualization of possible ideas. For example; it is possible for us to space travel, but we aren’t so advanced that this possibility can be actualized without much difficulty. Such difficulties are seen throughout society, in the form of detrimental issues, and our inability to resolve such issues with easy and accuracy, so the issues don’t happen again or the solutions are readily at hand, shows our disqualification of the title of even first-rate beings; We lack full control over our environment.)

The only true known facts of the universe are scalar as physics implies, these are the awareness of force and motion. It is in this that we understand the function of other beings and objects. Highly developed minds have knowledge of physics by being in control of force, we have the ability to sense force and react to it. If we move beyond scalar knowledge we begin to speak of different sciences, but all would imply scalars. It is this which lead science to becoming a main idea in most living creature’s minds, though most lack the capacity to fully understand the complex concepts that govern the universe; assuming all forces can even be fully comprehended in an unified science. The force of being a self controlled entity must synthesis with the force of nature, this is practical with all individual living beings.

We can speak of a few bounds or scalars found in existence. These are volume, force, and direction. We are constantly aware of force, existence is essentially force. Biology is a self aware force, this is opposed to mechanics, which is merely fundamental and necessary force. Direction is what separates force. Things that are accelerating at a constant speed will not stop unless acted on by something else moving at it from the opposite direction. In reality the direction of force doesn’t matter because force is always conserved, the universe operates on mechanics that have an unlimited supply of energy, due to the fact that matter and energy are constantly interchanging into one another. Direction becomes a concern to biological entities because our volume of energy is limited, we must find and obtain energy, thus direction is required knowledge.

The universe we perceived is a small portion of the volume existence is able to contain. Volume is the quantity of space which a being occupies. This is of course relative to other beings and only a concern of biological creatures. The greater the volume a being occupies the more force it will have, this is the main scalar which allows for each science to be separated. Cosmology is the study if the force of heavenly entities which in size take up extremely large volumes space. Particle physics is the study of extreme small entities and fundamentally energy itself, they are Planck size but are massively abundant. Biology is relatively in between cosmology and particle physics, We are immensely larger than a particle, but might as well be considered particles in relation to a star or a planet. Each study is apart of the single dimension of existence; they become separated by size, size very much influences the functionality of different beings and this is fundamental knowledge in science.

Categories of Existence III

Every phenomena an observer perceives is a single Space in itself(It maybe best to refer to Space as a system composed of elements, since we will be speaking of properties, a category of existence). The observer is also a phenomena, thus is also a single Space(or System, assuming the observer is able to do more than merely perceiving) in itself. Two Spaces need Motion to co-exist; regardless of if it is one phenomena(System) containing 2 Spaces, or one phenomena changing from one form to another. Every phenomena is in need of Motion, and form itself is known by Motion(For senses are needed to observe a phenomena, and to be apart of one. In this way the term “senses” is used more generally, it is the ability to generate force. We generate biological forces to perceive and interact with the world, whereas particles use weak forces, strong forces, and electromagnetic forces to interact. Planets, stars, black holes, etc. seem to use the force of gravity to interact. We sense matter through force, the force of light on our eyes allow us to see, the relative force of our molecular structure compared to the molecular structure of a wall is what determines the limits of motion; i.e. a person punching through a thin wall compared with a thick wall stopping the punch).

(Footnote: Properties are especially necessary in opposites, contraries, and contradictions; for these concepts necessitate dualities. Examples: long/short, true/false, existence/non-existence, young/old, whole/part, virtue/vice, zero/one, one/two, good/bad, straight/curved, etc. They are objects which are elements of a common system)

Properties are the elements of a system. I’ll use a very rough form of geometric space and logic to demonstrate my meaning. We would have to first begin by defining null space, or space with nothing in it, this we can represent with the element 0, lets give it a sense of a flat plane(represented with element p) and the color black(represented with element b). This would give the null space elements (p(b(0))), and this being one system we can call it S1. Within S1 we can create 2 more null spaces(00) on top of S1, then give them the senses of the color white(w) and the bounded figure circle(c). Placed (w(c(00))) anywhere in S1, and we can say S1 contains 2wc, or wc wc. The combined spaces would be 2wc(S1) making it a single system containing the properties of 2wc and S1, and elements pbwwcc000. It is just an arbitrary logic form that I’m using to illustrate the way in which properties and elements are, or can, be used. This is an example of the vastness of properties, such a vastness can’t be expressed in it’s fullest sense because senses themselves require properties and elements to exist. There would be too many elements to name in a single property of a major system(assuming all properties are from a metaphysical system containing words(properties) and their meanings(elements) being words defined by other words).

(Footnote: The null space(0) was meant to show the quantity of spaces used, for each system needs space to operate. Properties are the parts of a system, they are the origin of force in a system.)

The innate characteristics of a phenomena is what i call properties. Such a thing is somewhat difficult to explain, for every Space contains properties, and properties are in every Space. So defining what properties are, while still using properties, contains no depth. Perhaps another model will clarify the way properties are utilize. Take the proposition “A line is connected by two points.” This proposition is the illustration of a phenomena(or it can be consider a system), its a completed single Space. But the single Space contains innate characteristics, the two points and their connection to form a line. The completed Space is the line, but the line is created or can only exist by containing within it certain properties, these properties being two points(2 Spaces) and their connection to each other(1 Force); the points are elements of the system, the line created by the 2 points is the property of the system. Hence, “A line is connected by two points” is the system, the sense of the system is a line(property), created by means of 2 points(elements). The line could of been created by 10 bricks, that sense would be a brick line, with the elements of 10 bricks

Properties can be seen as the parts of a being, for every being is made of parts. Properties, or parts, are rather broad reaching and can be a trivial thing to consider. For if everything is a whole, then the whole is complete because of its many parts. Only nothing, pure non-existence can be defined as not having parts, if it is consider as a whole. But even nothing is related to everything and something, thus being apart of and a part of a system. Anyone who would inquire into the properties of everything may find themselves in a very difficult situation. When considering the properties of anything, one must consider every possible element combination. And every part of the totality of things is connected simply from being the properties of existence itself.

When we think about Properties, we can begin by thinking of necessity. What is necessary for such and such phenomena to exist, or what details do i perceive as an observer of such and such a phenomena? Our mode of communication is the expressing of properties, it is metaphysical. For every observer is a Space in themselves, and by being a single phenomena innately, has a particular point of view. The point of view is a property of an observer. We communicate our different points of view with one another through properties of a medium, such as the use of language or other expressions of meaning. Also, there must be a Space outside an observer with its own Properties for an observer to communicate with another being. If the only Space that exist is that of a single observer, then that observer must come out of itself to communicate with another. An observer that communicates with him/her self is merely utilizing his/her own innate properties; such as force to change his/her own Space, i.e. reflection, thought, imagination.

(Footnote: Language is a medium of communication. Every word is forced upon the object which it symbolizes, but the word itself is the property of the language. The correct way in which to use the symbols of a language is produced by the formal rules of the language itself. This, I find to be important, for most seem to take language for granted and assume its a normal thing. Language is nothing more than the Motion of sound waves produced by vocal chords; different sounds made in particular sequences to express meaning. The things that words symbolize aren’t the things in themselves but rather the idea of the things, they are metaphysical entities. A car is named a car because it is unable to name itself, and because it is necessary to identify the car as a single system, as a car qua car. A car qua car is still apart of another whole, and a whole composed of parts itself. But if we didn’t give car qua car its own Space and consider it a single phenomena(a single system), we may end up speaking ad infinitum. For, if starting the conversation on car qua car, we separate car from its parts and couldn’t tell the whole system from its properties, we would end up speaking about all things related to car, and thus speak about everything and infinite. A rather absurd consequence considering our imperfect knowledge.)

The precise structure of properties and their elements are determined by time.

On Time

I am quite confused as to what “time” actually is. The different aspects of practical time are the forward motion of past, present, and future. Now the present is a product of the past, which itself was at one point a present. Thus the present, as part of the past, becomes the future through time’s forward motion. Now the present is current time, the past is previous time and the future is later time. It is current time which we relate past and future to. If this is the case, then all past time was at one point present time; but since all present time is the result of a past time, all present time is actually future time. The future, in this sense of time, doesn’t exist as anything other than the present. For, to become the future, time must pass from past to present. If time passes from present to future, then the future becomes present, and the previous present becomes past. The future, as it is normally depicted, doesn’t actually exist. A future that is reached, without a realization or actuality, is nothing more than speculation. The present itself is nothing more than the continuous motion of the past. And if this is the case, then all of time is the alteration of the past, and thus all of time is present. Is this the true nature of time?

Actual time, scientifically represented, is a relation between two objects. We measure time using the repetitive count of 60. This count is broken into three; hours, minutes, and seconds. Seconds being the fastest count and each ending cycle resulting in a minute, and each 60 minutes resulting in an hour. This time system is then integrated into our notion of days, weeks, months, years, etc. In this view of time, time is relative to other time. Many may have heard of time in this form in Einstein’s special relativity. Special relativity, in a simplistic sense, states that time is the product of motion, and is contingent on the speed of an object. Our universal time is the relation of the earth’s motion around the sun. The measurement of motion is dependent on us, since we created our measuring system. Therefore, time is our subjective measurement of the relative motion between the earth and the sun. Certainly this is not natural time but pseudo-time, for “time” is dependent on us and is a feature of ourselves; but time qua time must be time as it is in itself, without the necessity of another object.

Time must be a state of motion. For the simple mention of time is a start of a phenomena, and every beginning is a force of motion. The only thing which has no true beginning is nothing; for if nothing begins, then it immediately becomes something. Therefore nothing is the closest one can get to a true state of rest. Let us look at the forward motion of time in accordance to numbers. When time is at rest, it must be at the motion of 0. But, 0 being one thing in itself is actually 1; it does the action of coming into being, and thus a motion is made which in itself represents 1. For 0 to exist as 0 qua 0 it must be in a constant state of destroying itself, going from one to zero, from something to nothing, without ever fully achieving its pure form(non-existence). Time in this form would be in a state of infinite destruction of itself, which can’t be the case.

We can look at time before time, but we must jump out of time itself to perceive what is outside of time, this we do using motion. But, if time is mere relation between the motion of two objects and their speed, then time must be an innate property of the relation between objects; not an innate property of the objects themselves. We manage to maintain a stable time by restricting time to a cycle, rather than allowing time to progress infinitely; which is what must be the true affair of time. For everything that is at rest is a constant state of being, while everything in motion is in a state of constant alteration. This being the case, time would continue from the point the phenomena itself began into infinity. And if we look for the beginning of time itself, rather than the beginning of our own time, we would find ourselves looking back to infinity, or find ourselves infinitely looking back; for to move back in time one must move themselves forward in their own time. We can move forward in our own time as far and as fast as our abilities allow, but must use our forward momentum in time to go back in time. If the person going back in time were immortal, he/she would go back to infinity. So even if time had a beginning, he/she would pass that beginning.

God and Quantity

An interesting conclusion follows from the logical deduction of God in terms of Quantity. Anyone who knows how to count can easily follow my reasoning in this matter, let me illustrate my meaning. God is 1 thing, therefore It can’t be nothing, and must be something. However, to know of God, an observer must perceive either God’s form or God’s motion. Now this can follow with several conclusions concerning Quantity and God. First there must be at least 2 things, God and the observer. God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things. If we negate the statement, “God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things,” we still end with 3 things. For, at the very least, the observer is 2 or more things, observer qua observer(Form) and observer qua observing(Motion); less any observer as such denies this determination. Thus resulting in the outcome still ending in 3; God, the observer, and the observer observing; this being the case regardless if God is known or not.

Another odd conclusion follows from God as First Cause. Considering the concept of a 1st Cause, this cause in itself, in relation to quantity, necessarily is 1 thing. But, a cause, in itself, necessitates an effect, making 2 things. And if a cause has no effect, then it can’t be considered a cause qua cause, rather the concept(idea, event, phenomena, etc.) must be an effect itself, or nothing at all(non-existent). Effect as an necessity is one circumstance of a 1st Cause; a causeless cause, a cause resulting from no effect, is another, and a paradox indeed. For a causeless cause can only come from 2 things, nothing and itself. The result of this is drastic, for if the causeless cause came from nothing, then we would still have 2 thing; the causeless cause and nothing. But, if nothing does anything it will cease to be nothing, and become something. No longer being nothing, it would be a falsehood to say a causeless cause came from nothing.

The second circumstance results in the same case. If a causeless cause caused itself, then we have still 2 things. For the effect of the causeless cause is the causeless cause itself. This leads to the cause of the causeless cause being itself, and the effect of the causeless cause being itself. Therefore the causeless cause must be somehow outside itself to cause itself, i am not quite sure how this is done. One way is for there to be 2 causeless cause, problem with that is 1 causeless cause would end up as an effect. Another way would be to make the causeless cause cause only itself. But how could a causeless cause become anything more than a causeless cause if it can only cause itself; for a causeless cause only effect would be itself, itself being nothing more than a causeless cause. A causeless cause seems to have the ability to exist as a causeless cause, but as nothing else.

Let us say the causeless cause caused itself and a man. The causeless cause would have caused 2 things. The cause of the causeless cause being the causeless cause itself, therefore the causeless cause is either 1 thing or 2 things. But how could the causeless cause cause a man? A man is a complex of things, to keep it simple let’s say 10 things, how did the causeless cause acquired 10 other things? the causeless cause hasn’t become anything more in itself but a 1st Cause, at most it is 2 things, which are both causeless causes. And in itself, it is nothing more than 1 thing, itself. For a causeless cause can only come from nothing and itself, and in itself it is nothing more than a 1st Cause.

Unless the causeless cause causes something other than itself, it is essentially always close to nothing(non-existence or null-existence). In the case of the causeless cause causing itself and a man, it can only cause a man. For it being a causeless cause would force it to result in a man. But, man qua man is the configuration of many things, and each thing related to something else. So from where could the causeless cause have preceded from causeless cause to a man? For, if such a proposition were to stand without validation, it would be the same as a man coming from nothing and from nowhere. And this is a result we have concluded before, that a causeless cause can only be caused by nothing or itself. A man can’t be the cause of himself, but if a man is caused by a causeless cause, then he would be the cause of himself. The cause of the causeless cause would be man, and man would be caused by the causeless cause.