A Philosophical Work in Progress

When a rational being intends to understand the entirety of existence, then it begins to philosophize. I believe it may begin with the expression of a meaningful series of questions. The expressions are arbitrary; it is the feeling or notion that is distinct. The notion of philosophy in a broad sense is the study of everything. Most humans, it would seem, do not seek to know everything; such a goal is quite unrealistic. Yet any attempt to escape the ennui of any circumstance would require that one tries to transcend the circumstance, even if the attempt is futile.

Perhaps the goal of philosophy is to know as much as one can. That seems to be what many philosophers do, they either explicitly state what they know, or they express a method that one can use to obtain knowledge. I personally prefer the Socratic Method, in which case one seeks knowledge through systematic questioning; although in practice most investigations fall short of a perfect or complete line of questioning. From what I have seen it would be foolish (perhaps impossible) to depend solely on the Socratic Method, but as a preliminary method it is as good as any other, and easily accessible.

The first notion which comes to my mind when I begin to think about what it means to “know” is observation. To observe a phenomenon is to experience it, which is to sense it in some way. On the other hand, to observe could merely mean to be aware of something. It sounds more proper for one to say “I am aware of knowledge,” than “I sense knowledge.” Typically individuals say they have/possess knowledge.

An observer is perhaps the best description of an object that mindlessly absorbs or somehow “perceives” information (information being a more concrete notion of knowledge). How the observer, or perhaps one could say an extended meaning of observer, is used by various mechanisms is quite complex. For one, the observer is the focal point of experience, particularly sensational experiences. This focal point can be awareness of one’s self. By what I have seen, most philosopher take the awareness of self and extend it to the awareness of others, the world, or god, and justly so I believe; for any object that cannot move beyond self awareness may not possess consciousness nor sentience. I myself do not imagine dead objects as objects that are only aware of themselves. I imagine physical space to be something analogous to multiple layers of infinitesimally thin cloths, or as infinitesimally small spheres which become more massive when they clump together. The mathematics, however, seems to show that the act of picturing a particular object itself is erroneous. But I know very little about such facts.

For me, the observer can be seen as a point on a plane. Knowledge is a network inside that point, with different nodes representing discrete information. This, however, is a mathematical analogy, and I lack a formal grasp of mathematics, albeit I’ll still use mathematical metaphors. The observer and knowledge relationship is also similar to the mind and body relationship; although I would consider the observer to be the thing below Descartes “cogito ergo sum.” The mind or body can be said to possess information, whereas the observer only senses information.

The interaction between observer and knowledge is very much like a Cartesian Theater, but the individual or thing viewing the stimuli/events also views the reflections, thoughts, and judgments being made. The observer becomes a problem when language is introduced, whereas knowledge becomes a problem when logic is introduced. There are many issues that need to be addressed.

No matter the perspective one takes, in practice at least, one can never have a view of everything (everything meaning omniscience). Knowledge of everything would imply producing a model or summary of everything. Exclusion of any detail could be seen as incomplete work. But to make an exact replica of everything would require everything. Creating another time and space similar to our own seems beyond the powers of a human being. Language is the closes we can get to a display of everything, with philosophy as the notion of the pursuit of truth and knowledge, despite its apparent ultimate failings. Everything is the collection of all particular things, and language implies that a particular thing be expressed.

Language itself is mediated by the thought of an agreed upon idea. Whether the idea is actually consistent in both minds, i.e. whether observers perceive the same events or two different events, is rarely analyzed in great detail; the notion of a common sense is typically applied to a circumstance by observers occupying a local space (local merely meaning one can interact with another). The notions of change and difference automatically conflict with the notion of a common sense, which leads me to the issues with knowledge and logic.

I am no logician, but I find the idea of logic quite compelling. All practical matters appear to require the minimum of an informal understanding of logic; Aristotle’s Organon could be an example of a formal theory of logic. Logic is profoundly useful in investigations on particular subjects. However, it is a difficult ideal to aspire to in philosophy. How can I obtain the knowledge of everything if it must also contain its negation, viz. non-philosophy/not everything? Particular items are not everything (unless the particular item in question is everything), but they are all still parts of philosophy (some particular categories in philosophy are ontology, epistemology, ethics, axiology, among others).

The second problem with logic is truth. What exactly is truth? It is perhaps best understood in comparison to its opposite, falsity. But falsehoods are truths one excludes from one’s own system of truths (for what would an unassailable reasoning or ultimate truth look like?). I would consider falsity to still be a truth, i.e. it is true that some propositions are false. The strongest truths typically are associated with empiricism. However, the observer perceives more than just sensory information. Most individuals observe science, religion, philosophy, or intuition in their models of the truth. Subjective truths are also in effect, and they generate more complications. Truth makes all notions ambiguous, and most methods fatal.

Thought seems to be the mechanism in which ideas obtain a praxis existence. Usually I think of thought as the internal monologue. Yet, there are many mechanisms which operate in us. One can repeat a single word in one’s mind while thinking of other ideas (either simultaneously or consecutively, I’m unsure which) and moving the body about. We have the connotation and denotation of words, i.e. the facts words express and the feelings associated with the words. We possess memory, which leads to the notion of time. The mind has many abilities, yet it has a limit.

Perhaps it can be said that the observer is viewing a consciousness. I can only speak for myself and those who may think like me, although I can’t guarantee certain truth. My consciousness is one of many. So whereas one could consider one’s self as a single point on a plane, life is multiple points on a finite plane moving about gaining and losing points as it goes along. Humans seem to be the only creatures that attempt to express universal facts about the world explicitly and logically. I believe it best to first focus on the non-intuitive facts/atypical senses of the world, which one may fall upon while investigating grander problems.

The validity of science is obtained from the expressions of observations made by observers from various times and places on the earth. The reoccurrence of particular ideas, perhaps expressed in different ways, binds them to the mind; one may become more attentive and reactive to those features of the world. Overall science seems to be a learnt skill, or perhaps it is the extension of the curious will.

What is consider natural after time has operated on it? Most, if not all, humans use ideas formulated by others. It seems that it is through mastery of one skill that we invent novel items. People praise those skills that go beyond naturally and universally inherited abilities, e.g. no one praises another for breathing (unless the individual is a new born, or recovering from an injury). Science is the study of nature qua nature, which seems to imply that it is somehow innate to nature, although its modern interpretation is not in the mind from birth. It is the ability to question or be curious that appears innate in us, though how strongly the emotion is felt depends on an individual’s proclivity.

It seems to me that social, genetic, and first-person forces push the individual toward particular actions. I want to remove errors and acquire vital truths of the world, which would perhaps be achieved quickly and efficiently if I survey the works of the most profound minds to appear on earth. I can’t enumerate every author I’ve ever read; I hope their influence on my mind is entailed in my thoughts. The hope of philosophy is to constantly go beyond any limits.

The limit of philosophy appears to be God. My personal understanding of God is acquired by first negating all other notions of it. If I have any direct relationship with God, it must be founded in my nature. Philosophy being the study of everything, and God being the limit of philosophy, makes God everything itself or something beyond everything. In any case, God can be used as an extreme notion.

Religion/theology is the study of God. God being the initial and/or final being is, in some sense, the ultimate being. Like every other religion, I would say all other religions contain some truths and many errors. I’m perhaps not a religious individual, but I do enjoy playing with the notion of God. For instance, I would consider It both within and beyond understanding, which is logically absurd; yet if absurdities exist, they must exist in existence.

What is the relationship between science and religion? Maybe science is a set of axioms or vitally true propositions one uses to make sense of the universe. If God can be known, then the universe in question is either the universe of God or a part of God’s universe, or perhaps God is the universe. In any case one would need to think about one’s own relationship with God. From the viewpoint of mere existence, a relationship with God is a relationship with anything at all.

Science is an amalgamation of findings from studies on the natural world, i.e. the world of the senses. Information picked up by our senses are encoded into language and recorded in or on a medium of some sort. The medium of self seems to be the focus of experience or the immediate container of the observer, all of which is perhaps summed up to be consciousness. Consciousness is a strange object, but in relation to the natural/physical world, it appears to be a logical outcome of complex and dynamic forces. All things or anything can be just byproducts of God; or certain things can be specially made by God.

There may be no way to truly know which actions are from God or from something other than God, e.g. accidents or byproducts from God’s mere existence. One notion that I believe is the doing of God (assuming It does something more than merely existing) is logic, or “the rules of mere existence."

The brain seems to have a function that is directed toward the physical world, the senses, and a function that is directed toward symbolism, reasoning. These properties can conflict or supplement each other; for reason appears to contradict sensation when one expresses a particular happening that is not actually happening, which is a falsity. The truth, however, is usually sought for outside of one’s simple self, i.e. the scientific truth is objective and serves a function.

What is expressed in society serves a social function. How exactly does the "social being” exist? Individuals must somehow cooperate while pursuing personal goals/motives. Simply put, we work in the best interest of our being, which is a complex system. What is God’s hand in the harmonious movement of beings?

On Purpose II

An object as massive as the universe, or even more fundamental, existence itself, could not possibly have been actualize for any other reason than that it could not have not happened. It is impossible for absolute nothingness to exist at any point in time, therefore existence must have always existed in some form. There is no other source for existence other than existence itself. Every phenomena in this place, including ourselves, are just parts of this whole. It has no innate or ultimate purpose, it’s merely a self propelled force. Ultimately, we also have no profound purpose. However, our brains are capable of simulating various perspectives of reality. All we need is an object in which to pursue, and we will begin to formulate means to obtain it. This knowledge of our possibilities and necessities gives rise to the concept of purpose. A consequence of the body’s adaptation to the environment.

The capacity for pain and pleasure(the negative state and positive state of the body) is the bases for the idea of purpose. If pain and pleasure did not exist, it would be impossible to know what situations we should pursue and which we should avoid. Also, how would creatures learn and evolve without these senses? It is necessary that a rational being have the ability to identify dysfunction and efficiency, as rationality requires a universal logic and adaptable mechanics. For sensations are reactions, or reflexes, to the environment. How else could the body possibly maneuver this harsh environment?

Purpose is nothing more than a pain and pleasure motivator. Even knowledge, the most valuable object in existence, is weighed in accordance to its efficiency at achieving some pleasure or avoiding some pain. Without sensations of pain and pleasure, knowledge would be nothing more than a collection of useless data. And, unless the world is adapting to the individual in it, it is impossible to live without some kind of adaptation to the environment.

If it is a fact and truth that there is no intrinsic purpose to life and existence, than is it permitted for people to take advantage of others for personal gains? For what end would an intelligent being do so, knowing its existence is not permanent, and nothing is greater than the whole? The rational choice is to formulate a harmonious relationship with the environment and acquire valuable information. Only knowledge has proven to be effective in preserving contentment, for brute strength is not enough, an understanding of direction is needed, in living entities at least. And happiness seems to be the goal of most.

(Footnote: Though life is purposeless, virtue is logically preferable to vice. Virtue is another concept which imposes on the mind. For all rational beings do what they perceive as good; and most shall agree that those who do evil to themselves or others for the sole reason of evil or pain are irrational. Therefore, if purpose exist, one must maintain also the virtue exist. What actions are virtuous?)

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.)

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.

Categories of Existence II

Now many philosophers have created their own categories of existence, or being, which is just one of the reasons i find it important. I suppose that such a task is traditional, in a sense. But such a task is necessary in any metaphysical system. The categories i choose are meant to be very simple because the metaphysical system of reality is a manifold system; one could think of 2-D, 3-D, 4-D and quantum mechanics mixed into one system, and in a sense that is the reality we live in. The system i propose is the least difficult and burdensome, for it operates all properties at once, as we shall see ultimately.

The third property of existence is Quantity. This property is an abstract substance, because its brought about by the observer; more particularly because the observer is another Space and Motion, and understands this fact. For Motion is intrinsically and inseparably apart of Space, and each Motion and Space can be assigned a Quantity. Quantity is completely contingent on the observer, or at least in my view it is. For all things are in existence, and all of existence is one; therefore, in a technical sense, every Space and Motion is one. But Space and Motion are separate. For the form, or essence, of a thing is stable and we call it one Space, but Space must extend or is mere extension, which necessitates Motion of some kind; and Motion in turn implies an unstable state. So it would seem that the true state of Space is constant Motion, therefore constant change.To differentiate between each state of Space by means of Motion, while still maintaining that all Space is one, is the utility of Quantity.

The significance of Quantity is in the observer. And how the observer perceives Quantity can have some major effects on the system. A hypothetical may illustrate what i mean more efficiently. If reality is one Space, then the Quantity of all things are 1. If the observer considers himself/herself separate from reality, then the Quantity of all things are 2. If the observer can perceive Space separate from Motion, then the Quantity of all things are 3. If the observer perceives another Space separate from the Space of reality and the Space of the observer, then the Quantity of all things are 4. If the observer perceives the other Space, in Motion, then the quantity of all things become 5. As one can see, this system can go on ad infinitum. Mathematics is the main system that deals with Quantity exclusively, but Quantity is useless without objects to quantify, as we can see.

I believe the greatest explanation for Quantity comes from Parmenides. Here is one of his statements concerning Quantity, more specifically the number one,”But if one is, and both odd and even numbers are implied in one, must not every number exist? And number is infinite, and therefore existence must be infinite, for all and every number partakes of being; therefore being has the greatest number of parts, and every part, however great or however small, is equally one. But can one be in many places and yet be a whole? If not a whole it must be divided into parts and represented by a number corresponding to the number of the parts. And if so, we were wrong in saying that being has the greatest number of parts; for being is coequal and coextensive with one, and has no more parts than one; and so the abstract one broken up into parts by being is many and infinite. But the parts are parts of a whole, and the whole is their containing limit, and the one is therefore limited as well as infinite in number; and that which is a whole has beginning, middle, and end, and a middle is equidistant from the extremes; and one is therefore of a certain figure, round or straight, or a combination of the two, and being a whole includes all the parts which are the whole, and is therefore self-contained. But then, again, the whole is not in the parts, whether all or some. Not in all, because, if in all, also in one; for, if wanting in any one, how in all?–not in some, because the greater would then be contained in the less. But if not in all, nor in any, nor in some, either nowhere or in other. And if nowhere, nothing; therefore in other. The one as a whole, then, is in another, but regarded as a sum of parts is in itself; and is, therefore, both in itself and in another. This being the case, the one is at once both at rest and in motion: at rest, because resting in itself; in motion, because it is ever in other.”

Categories of Existence

To better understand existence, we can start by creating properties in which existence exist. I will attempt to restrict language somewhat, thus to maintain a complete concept of all possible existences; though no one would be wrong in saying that this is incorrect, which we may see at a later time. But these properties i will consider universal for right now. There are five properties of existence; Space, Motion, Quantity, Property, Time. These are intrinsic and necessary in our reality at the very least, they can not be separated from existence or each other.

Each property is intertwined with existence so tightly that the basic concept is difficult to explain. Each term itself is arbitrary to the actual concept; a concept which i doubt any being can fully grasp except existence itself. I will still do my best to explain as completely as possible starting with Space. Space, as defined, is form; and form is length, width, and depth. When we think of Space, the subject of geometry should come into mind, or one can think of cosmology, the study of outer space. Space is the shape of a figure, and as we know, figures come in a myriad of shapes and sizes. Existence is perhaps the biggest space imaginable, and the universe, or reality, second biggest. The smallest space known is the atom or particle, which physicists measure using Planck’s constant, which is a very small number. Space and the other properties of existence, as terms, are reliant on a observer; But also, for an observer to be a observer qua observer, he/she must also exist, and is therefore reliant on existence conversely.

(Footnote: I personally simply assume we are the observers. And as i am apart of we, i must conclude that existence existed before me. I can not affirm the knowledge any events that occurred before my birth with certainty, for is is all knowledge from hearsay. The facts and evidence are adequate, however, and i can’t believe otherwise unless evidence to do so was brought to me. This is very much an issue concerning mind, which i will review latterly. Our existence itself is a mind/body paradox which should be taken into account more often than it usually is.)

The next property of existence is Motion. By Motion i mean any action; action being simply a thing done, a force exerted. Motion is easily seen in relation to Space, when Space is being occupied or changing form. Particles, the basic building blocks of existence, are in constant Motion. Motion is what brings particles together in various configurations. When particles become more restricted in Motion and Space, they clump together and form many of the objects we see around us; however though we see things “at rest,” at the subatomic they’re still in Motion, or more precisely exerting a force. In a broad scale, the primary forces that act in nature are; electromagnetic force, gravitational force, weak force, and strong force. These are more of a psychics standard of Motion. Motion comes in many different actions that create rather counter-intuitive concepts to exist.

Motion is also implied in the simple fact of an object being in Space. For Space is a pure form of extension, thus any object in Space is taking up volume in Space. But Space itself, being pure extension and a unit, doesn’t necessitate an object, because it is itself an object. However, extension is a Motion, and as such is an intrinsic Motion of Space. In the Space of reality, we only know what empirical facts tell us. Any premise that is to concern reality must have an implication of Space of some form and whatever Motion its doing. Reasons being other concepts, other Motions and Spaces, such as cause and effect; observing, observer, observed triune; and the mind-body relationship.

(Footnote: I’m going to end here for now. For the idea is starting to take shape, and just needs more information. It’s clear that the rather intrinsic properties of existence itself is spread throughout all existence. But as we separate the multiple factors of existence, it becomes more clear what existence is, and how it can be.)

On Existence/Existing

Here is a subject that many pass over everyday, in every conversation, yet never full understand; existence. I’ve been thinking about this topic lately, and have come to a few conclusions concerning; what existence is, and what does it mean to exist. What I’ve found is that not many of my concepts were all that novel, in fact, it is possible to say that none of them are actually new ideas, but rather they are subjective views of objective principles. But as i said, this subject is in every aspect of life, therefore it is not a difficult one to grasp.

Existence is the polar opposite of non-existence. this is the simplest way to begin to explain what existence is. For non-existence is more readily known than existence. Non-existence, I’ll define as; anything one doesn’t know, has never experienced, and can’t perceive with any sense. This should make non-existence not at all difficult to understand for all we our, our minds, are a configuration of knowledge, experience, and senses; and this is a simple understanding of the mind, but a useful view in this discussion. The proposition for existence is than thus; Non-existence does not exist, for if it existed than it would cease to be non-existence and become existence; existence can be known, experienced, and sensed; non-existence can’t be known, experienced, or sensed, therefore non-existence can not exist. This may sound very trivial, but it is fundamental; which will be more apparent when the features of existence are stated.

For a better understanding of non-existence, it maybe best to go over some concepts the get very close to non-existence, but never truly become it. The first stems from logic and is called negation. Negation in logic is equivalent to the English word not, which is the simplest way to define negation. When we say something is negated, we mean to say that it does not exist. But this is not true non-existence, for the thing which does not exist has been initiated, in a sense, in existence. For no one will deny that, for negation to operate, something existing, in a sense, must be negated.

(Footnote: When i say “in a sense,” I’m speaking of forms of communication, such as speech, writing, signs, etc. These are contingent on our senses, for there is not other way to experience them. And, of course, we only know and understand that which we have experienced. These are just simple ways to explain the mind and brain, and mind and body duality, which I’ll discuss at a latter time)

Another concept related to non-existence is a vacuum. By vacuum, I’m speaking more in scientific terms, and mainly the study of physics. In physics, the terms “non-existence” or “nothing” would relate to a vacuum, and a vacuum is space void of matter. Matter in physics refers to particles or atoms, both essentially the same thing; the smallest known objects that exist in the universe. These objects, in physics, are the building blocks of the universe, thus of existence. At the subatomic level, however, these objects become nothing more than pure energy. So it is impossible to be rid of all particles in a real vacuum, for every vacuum itself is a force, and therefore necessitates a particle. Also, complete empty space is still space qua space, and space when empty still contains potential, volume, and substance. Empty space, in a sense, is the purest form of existence, but not of reality.

(Footnote: Physics as i perceive it is the most fundamental principles of nature, more specifically the nature of reality. For though it is just a theory, and it may deserve a more prominent position, it explains many different motions of matter with extremely high precision. Its major flaw stems from its greatest asset, mathematics. Because reality is extremely precise in every motion, for every action is accompanied by a reaction, every cause produces an effect; this produces a constant and perfect one to one proportion. Concerning reality and quantity, this will generate very high numbers, which never even start in one to one proportions. Perhaps and example is needed in a later time.)

In Rene Descartes’ The Principles of Philosophy he states this about non-existence; “With regard to a vacuum, in the philosophical sense of the term, that is, a space in which there is no substance, it is evident that such does not exist, seeing the extension of space or internal place is not different from that of body. For since from this alone, that a body has extension in length, breadth, and depth, we have reason to conclude that it is a substance, it being absolutely contradictory that nothing should possess extension, we ought to form a similar inference regarding the space which is supposed void, viz., that since there is extension in it there is necessarily also substance.” This is in relation to the previous statements concerning empty space.

Existence and non-existence, or existence in general, is very much a paradox. However, the beginning of its whole being has no middle ground, which is, nowhere in existence can one find non-existence because non-existence does not exist. This by necessity must be the first premise of existence.