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.)
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
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)
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)
Friday, November 13, 2009
There is NO defying reason
#1 basic components of things
What things are relative to all things? What is a thing? It can be anything, everything, nothing, it definatly must be something, however, for if it is not something it is nothing, and nothing must be a thing for I can not see anything before nothing without making it something. If it at all is still unclear then we can also define such a thing in mathematics where nothing is defined as 0 but is still defined as 1 with the equation 0!=1.
How does this happen is a very important question? Something must happen for nothing to become something. The truth is nothing happens for something to become nothing and nothing is still something. This is made true by the first thing relative to all things which is space. We must consider that what nothing does is take up some form of space.
Space being something that is related to everything is in fact not a simple concept to define. The reason being that space is a concept that is so well understood by everything that I can not see anything, intelligent or inanimate, not agreeing that it has a distanct location and is there by reason. Thus, nothing becomes something, which is space, however, everything takes up space.
Why then is the space of nothing considered as such? The reason being that there is no observable motion being done in the space of nothing. This brings us to the second relative thing which is related between all things in existance which is motion. For nothing to be something or anything it must take up space and be able to move. We consider movement as an attribute to everything in existants because everything moves and things that dont move have been placed there by something that does move. Movement can then be defined as any change in location, which can be any motion in any space. Movement, therefore, is a part everything and can be anything, but must be something because lack of movement is nothing.
Every occurrence which has happened, is happingng, is to happen will and must be done by some form of motion. The relationship between motion and space is what we call time. Time is the measurement of the amount of motion it takes to get from one space to another. Time is the third relationship all things have to each other because for time to be measured motion and space must be related to other motions and spaces. Everything is affected apun by the interelationship of time, motion, and space.
Time, motion, and space are interconnected with one not existing without another. Reality is proof of this interconnection and I can perseve nothing in existance that can be used to disapprove this fact. What we call “reality” or “real” is what I will define as; a space where motions interact with each other. Since most things are just combinations of other things, such as most living bodies being compused of billions of cells, more or less. And all these other things are compused of other parts which all have their own uses and so forth.
What things are relative to all things? What is a thing? It can be anything, everything, nothing, it definatly must be something, however, for if it is not something it is nothing, and nothing must be a thing for I can not see anything before nothing without making it something. If it at all is still unclear then we can also define such a thing in mathematics where nothing is defined as 0 but is still defined as 1 with the equation 0!=1.
How does this happen is a very important question? Something must happen for nothing to become something. The truth is nothing happens for something to become nothing and nothing is still something. This is made true by the first thing relative to all things which is space. We must consider that what nothing does is take up some form of space.
Space being something that is related to everything is in fact not a simple concept to define. The reason being that space is a concept that is so well understood by everything that I can not see anything, intelligent or inanimate, not agreeing that it has a distanct location and is there by reason. Thus, nothing becomes something, which is space, however, everything takes up space.
Why then is the space of nothing considered as such? The reason being that there is no observable motion being done in the space of nothing. This brings us to the second relative thing which is related between all things in existance which is motion. For nothing to be something or anything it must take up space and be able to move. We consider movement as an attribute to everything in existants because everything moves and things that dont move have been placed there by something that does move. Movement can then be defined as any change in location, which can be any motion in any space. Movement, therefore, is a part everything and can be anything, but must be something because lack of movement is nothing.
Every occurrence which has happened, is happingng, is to happen will and must be done by some form of motion. The relationship between motion and space is what we call time. Time is the measurement of the amount of motion it takes to get from one space to another. Time is the third relationship all things have to each other because for time to be measured motion and space must be related to other motions and spaces. Everything is affected apun by the interelationship of time, motion, and space.
Time, motion, and space are interconnected with one not existing without another. Reality is proof of this interconnection and I can perseve nothing in existance that can be used to disapprove this fact. What we call “reality” or “real” is what I will define as; a space where motions interact with each other. Since most things are just combinations of other things, such as most living bodies being compused of billions of cells, more or less. And all these other things are compused of other parts which all have their own uses and so forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)