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 time. Show all posts
Showing posts with label time. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
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.)
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.)
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)
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
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.
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.
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)