Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 9th, 2017, 3:53 am

This conviction is the root of the confusion. There is absolutely no individuality in the concept of number. Individuality is not what counts us who we are, it is the limitation of the quantifier to do just that that is who we are. The character of change, not continuity. Contrariety, not constancy. Differentiation, not replication. And the way we know this is because we form a community in contrariety by being complement to each other in making that incompleteness of number recognizable. And without ever being the same in this, but always only complementaries contrary to it, we create all the terms we need in that recognition. And we do this through each other by differing. It is the character of that differing that is the qualifier by which time is recognizable as change and difference, and a great deal more than a stack of turtles.

Blinded,
Is your first name Michael? Your conviction, and some of your terms, sound a lot like someone I used to butt posts with on another site.


-- Updated November 9th, 2017, 3:57 am to add the following --

Time is no 'one'.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 9th, 2017, 8:54 am

Gary_M_Washburn wrote:
Blinded,
Is your first name Michael? Your conviction, and some of your terms, sound a lot like someone I used to butt posts with on another site.
No, Gary, that is not me. Thanks for your input, though :)

User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 493
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gulnara » November 9th, 2017, 1:48 pm

BlindedWantsToSee wrote:I concur with the above answer. I would also add that one is too many to count. One is every single, separate, individual, object or entity. I also want to clarify that I am not denying individuality with my previous statement. What it means is that all the separate, individual, life forms or things are made of the same one fundamental substance, as described previously on this post. The validation of, and respect for, every individual is key to living a moral life and the only hope for peace in life.
Well said.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 9th, 2017, 2:55 pm

"One is one, and all alone
and evermore...,"

-- Updated November 9th, 2017, 2:56 pm to add the following --

"One is one, and all alone
and evermore...,"

-- Updated November 9th, 2017, 3:00 pm to add the following --

"One is one, and all alone
and evermore...,"

-- Updated November 9th, 2017, 3:01 pm to add the following --

This site needs an edit function!

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 368
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 9th, 2017, 3:13 pm

BlindedWantsToSee wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



(Nested quote removed.)


Where's the evidence of this?
One form of evidence is the Big Bang Theory and all of the evidence that supports it. This is, basically, an extrapolation made from the observation that everything and everybody (no exception) on this planet came from a source, and each of those sources also arises from another source that produced it. If we trace back the sources, we see that most materials and life on earth came from earth, earth came from the sun, the solar system came from the galaxy, and so forth back to the Big Bang (which is actually still happening because the universe is still expanding as a consequence of that initial expanding force acting upon itself to produce the universe we see).

Another form of evidence for this claim comes from the field of Quantum Physics; which has proven that the seemingly solid material world with all its seemingly different objects and elements, is not really solid at all, but mostly empty space, and the elements all consist of the same things: mostly fields of energy and tiny particles, or waves of matter, or strings; all of which seem to be conscious because they all react to consciousness. Everything is just one type of thing: conscious energy. This conscious or intelligent energy is the source of all forms, including: us, what we see around us, the states each and all forms take, and the changes in those states, which also require the action of energy to take place.

Everything comes from this one source. Some people call it The Big Bang, others call it God, others call it energy and matter, I call it The Universal Source.
But then, what is it that gets to bang? How does the banging occur without the space and time required to expand? And why isn't the "source" part of the everything?

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 9th, 2017, 5:05 pm

Time and space, quite literally, burst into existence. Can't be a bigger bang than that! But notions of some ethereal "source" just confuse the terms. Like trying to determine whether light, definitely and for sure, is a particle or a wave, or trying to predetermine the indeterminacy principle. Or. more likely, like seeing patterns where there are none, as in perceiving a "winning streak", which, of course, is a contradiction in terms, or a fundamental misunderstanding of them. The most lethal critique of a philosophical position is that it mistakes, or fails to grasp, the meaning of its terms. Logicians use the universal qualifier, "is", as if it were a quantifier, and so, quite literally, don't know what it means. But try to explain this to them and you get nothing but evasions and mystifications. There are no axioms in philosophy, and, until the complete scope of just how questionable all our terms and perceptions are, we haven't even begun to do philosophy. We just get chased around in circles by our own prejudices and presumptions, by what we deem unquestionably true and "well said".

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 368
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 9th, 2017, 10:17 pm

Gary_M_Washburn wrote:Time and space, quite literally, burst into existence. Can't be a bigger bang than that!
Consider the word "burst". It's a verb, implies action. Actions occur in time, so whatever burst, could not create time, as it already needed to move from one state to another, from one moment to another. To burst also requires a domain with extension (like space) as the container in which that thing realizes its being.

Consider then the phrase "into existence". The presence of the preposition in front of the noun, creating the complement of the verb in the predicate, indicates another term in the relationship, the receiving end of the action. And that receiving end is supposed to be "existence", implying that something already existing changed to a state of existence, which is an absurd proposition.

It looks like nothing could burst into being, things just get transformed. Existence cannot start existing. Thinking of a non-existence that exists is absurd.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 10th, 2017, 12:35 am

Count Lucanor wrote: But then, what is it that gets to bang? How does the banging occur without the space and time required to expand? And why isn't the "source" part of the everything?
The Source is part of everything! It is everything, actually. It is just crumbled, chipped, fragmented, disintegrated. That's why we are individuals, or separate living beings. Otherwise we would be a collective living being, but this is not the case.

I don't claim to know everything, but I'll tell you what makes sense to me regarding the origin of the universe. The Big Bang is the first cause, or source, that produced the universe we see today, that has been identified by science. This is not to say there was no universe prior to the Bang, but science cannot see farther back than that event, nor does it have any way of describing with any degree of certainty what form the universe took prior to the Big Bang event (scientist may disagree, but they don't know any more than I do what things were like prior to the Big Bang). It could have been a purely non-physical intelligence that that decided to make itself partly physical.

An alternative explanation is given by the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tsu, in chapters 2, 40, and 42; which suggests that non-being gives rise to the One Being; which gives rise to everything in existence; and that existence eventually returns to non-existence. I don't take the Tao Te Ching word for word, but I find its ideas interesting to ponder.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 10th, 2017, 4:26 am

Mr. Lucanor,
Positively medieval! It's been fifty years since I studied physics, and I can't do the calculus anymore, but I can see the difference between the idea and the inability of terms to present them. Capitalizing, on that inadequacy, to derive nonsensical conclusions is not clever at all.

Blinded,
There must be a last or bottom turtle? Must? Ever think to question this? How can there be a world without any beginning, and yet limited? If your concept of limit requires the conviction of endless continuity, and your concept of continuity requires the conviction of limit, maybe it's 'time' to ask a question? But such contradictory criteria can convince us we are justified not only in concluding there are turtles all the way down, but that somewhere along the line, a long long way down, one of them is pink.
There cannot be one and many without contradiction. There cannot be limit and endless continuity without contradiction. The way there is a beginning that can convince us of continuity as the criteria of finding it, or endless continuity convinced us of limit as the criteria of finding it, is via the contrary, not the contradictory term. The way this is possible is if the contrary term is found by its other to complement its contrariety to the contradiction between one and many, between which one is which and the oneness it would be, and between continuity and limit. The community in contrariety, the complement between contrary terms, supplies us with the terms needed to convince ourselves of the power of terms unrecognized as contradictory, but it also supplies us with the terms we need to recognize the meaning behind the inability to speak of real things without contradiction. The difference is between sophistry and philosophy. The difference is between statements and questions.
The use of the terms 'burst' or 'bang' are apt. It really did happen this way, and 'before' there was no 'before' at all. Enigmatic? You bet! But it requires of us, not that we arrogate our convictions, but to question them.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 368
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 10th, 2017, 11:05 am

BlindedWantsToSee wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: But then, what is it that gets to bang? How does the banging occur without the space and time required to expand? And why isn't the "source" part of the everything?
The Source is part of everything! It is everything, actually. It is just crumbled, chipped, fragmented, disintegrated. That's why we are individuals, or separate living beings. Otherwise we would be a collective living being, but this is not the case.
And where does the "Source" comes from? Since you said everything came from somewhere and the "Source" is everything.
BlindedWantsToSee wrote: I don't claim to know everything, but I'll tell you what makes sense to me regarding the origin of the universe. The Big Bang is the first cause, or source, that produced the universe we see today, that has been identified by science.
That may well make sense to you, but not to me. This conversation started with your claim that there was evidence of everything you had asserted.
BlindedWantsToSee wrote:This is not to say there was no universe prior to the Bang, but science cannot see farther back than that event, nor does it have any way of describing with any degree of certainty what form the universe took prior to the Big Bang event (scientist may disagree, but they don't know any more than I do what things were like prior to the Big Bang). It could have been a purely non-physical intelligence that that decided to make itself partly physical.
Now, this is pure speculation based on the limits of science. But then it would be more appropriate to call it like it is, since there's no real evidence of the hypothesis you advance.
BlindedWantsToSee wrote:An alternative explanation is given by the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tsu, in chapters 2, 40, and 42; which suggests that non-being gives rise to the One Being; which gives rise to everything in existence; and that existence eventually returns to non-existence. I don't take the Tao Te Ching word for word, but I find its ideas interesting to ponder.
I absolutely not. No more than the ideas in Genesis.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 11:29 am to add the following --
Gary_M_Washburn wrote:Mr. Lucanor,
Positively medieval! It's been fifty years since I studied physics, and I can't do the calculus anymore, but I can see the difference between the idea and the inability of terms to present them. Capitalizing, on that inadequacy, to derive nonsensical conclusions is not clever at all.
What can be more medieval, or perhaps pre-medieval, than the Cosmological Argument? Anyway, it's up to you to find the terms that will give full sense and support the idea you want to present coherently. If you can't do that, not clever at all from you to adventure into debate unprepared to back your claims.
Gary_M_Washburn wrote:
The use of the terms 'burst' or 'bang' are apt.
No. I have shown they aren't and you conceded they were inadequate.
Gary_M_Washburn wrote:
It really did happen this way, and 'before' there was no 'before' at all. Enigmatic? You bet! But it requires of us, not that we arrogate our convictions, but to question them.
But then how do you assert with conviction that "it really did happen this way"? Why is this not questioned?

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 10th, 2017, 1:23 pm

Because it's been subjected to a tremendous amount of scrutiny and honest responses to all objections. Are you saying there is no cosmos? Or that current physics is wrong because medieval scholars had a quaint notion of the term? I think your cosmology would have been laughed out of physics class. I rather expect there is a dearth of philosophical knowledge here too. Scholasticism was a form of logic practiced in the middle ages in which strange conclusions were drawn from a sequence of carelessly defined terms. But the best example of this actually goes back to Plato. Refer to his dialogue Euthydemus. It may not show you what a good argument is, but is an excellent portrayal of a bad one. Are you here to do philosophy, or to make points? Time, and matter, as physics shows, in agreement with my critique of reason and intuition, is neither one thing nor the other. It is precisely this that is the dynamic energy of reality. Looking for some definite end is precisely to miss the point altogether.

-- Updated November 10th, 2017, 1:35 pm to add the following --

Actually, I believe I did state in an earlier post that truth is not a finished conclusion, but a relative confidence that we are being exhaustive in our questioning our facts, our perceptions, our prejudices, and our formal procedures. And that that confidence is an empty gesture unless it responds honestly to different views offered by others. All I see from you and Blinded is repetition of the same views and a dogmatic resistance to seeing any validity in differing views. And I also said that, actually, what identifies us as the person we each are is the dynamic in that confidence through which our views change in response to the pursuit of the rigor of questioning and responding as honestly and competently as possible to alternatives.

User avatar
Gulnara
Posts: 493
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gulnara » November 10th, 2017, 8:55 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
Gary_M_Washburn wrote:Time and space, quite literally, burst into existence. Can't be a bigger bang than that!
Consider the word "burst". It's a verb, implies action. Actions occur in time, so whatever burst, could not create time, as it already needed to move from one state to another, from one moment to another. To burst also requires a domain with extension (like space) as the container in which that thing realizes its being.

Consider then the phrase "into existence". The presence of the preposition in front of the noun, creating the complement of the verb in the predicate, indicates another term in the relationship, the receiving end of the action. And that receiving end is supposed to be "existence", implying that something already existing changed to a state of existence, which is an absurd proposition.

It looks like nothing could burst into being, things just get transformed. Existence cannot start existing. Thinking of a non-existence that exists is absurd.
I love this answer.

-- Updated Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:06 pm to add the following --

When the fetus is concieved, it's like a Big Bang happened to it, then it grows, moves to the uterus, expandes and eventually moved out of its initial space into outer shell of the woumb which is our Earthly world.
Birth of the Universe could be quite similar, with preexisting conditions being present for it to be concieved, expand and someday to be expelled into somewhere else, which does not necessarily means some place of sorrow, or nothingness, but yet another stage of its existence.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 11th, 2017, 12:05 pm

Gary_M_Washburn wrote: Blinded,
There must be a last or bottom turtle?... The use of the terms 'burst' or 'bang' are apt. It really did happen this way, and 'before' there was no 'before' at all. Enigmatic? You bet! But it requires of us, not that we arrogate our convictions, but to question them.
Gary, I think we are missing the point here. What my theory is saying is: that we are here, now (hopefully we can all agree on that); and that our lives (the totality of the human experience), historically and in the present, contain a lot of violence, misery, despair, or human suffering (hopefully we can all agree on that), which I refer to as evil. The mechanics of how we got here, and how we got to the now moment is really not the main object of the discussion. The fact is we are here now, and our lives are what they are.

What our lives are has a definite cause. The fact that our history is filled with bloodshed everywhere in the world, the fact that social injustice is so prevalent now, the fact we have so much disease, the fact there is so much crime, the fact that we are all capable of being so unkind to one another and to other forms of life (either for pure pleasure or with another end in mind), etc. all stem from the very nature of life. That is what this post is trying to convey. This is what I would like people to consider, to see if they can find any truth in what it's said.

The reason I am staying away from doing classical philosophy here is because, if I do, most likely I will get hung up on the same or similar issues the ancients got hung up on, like technicalities, the meaning or words, or the fact that we cannot truly know very much about the objective world. The subjective world is what really matters to us, I think (our quality of life, the quality of our emotions, our human experience in its entirety; that is what's important). Whether there is a turtle at the bottom, or a rock, or something else which we cannot name, or there is no bottom at all, I cannot prove to you. I can't prove to you that I'm real! But I know that I'm real, and that I'm here, now, and that I have seen and felt many things in my life that are very hurtful. I'm making sense of that, and I'm sharing that for anybody that can find any value in any of the things I have exposed, to improve their human experience.

-- Updated November 11th, 2017, 12:36 pm to add the following --
Count Lucanor wrote:And where does the "Source" comes from? Since you said everything came from somewhere and the "Source" is everything.
To me it's simple. Exactly where the Source came from is irrelevant. It came from itself. It came from nowhere. Take your pick. Or pick something else. Something produced what we see today. Whatever you pick is the Source. If you want to call it something other than source, that is fine with me too. This is not the point.
Count Lucanor wrote:That may well make sense to you, but not to me. This conversation started with your claim that there was evidence of everything you had asserted.
I stated the evidence I use to base my assertion of a source which produced everything we see in the universe. This is evidence, not proof. Even if it were proof, it would not be proof to you if you decided to reject it. Sometimes absolute proof is not available, and we just have to go on hints and clues.
Count Lucanor wrote:Now, this is pure speculation based on the limits of science. But then it would be more appropriate to call it like it is, since there's no real evidence of the hypothesis you advance.
That the universe may have been purely non-physical prior to the big bang is speculation, there is no real evidence. I am not really claiming to know the nature of the Source other than it is evil because produces suffering in living beings.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 368
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 11th, 2017, 1:08 pm

Gary_M_Washburn wrote:Because it's been subjected to a tremendous amount of scrutiny and honest responses to all objections. Are you saying there is no cosmos? Or that current physics is wrong because medieval scholars had a quaint notion of the term? I think your cosmology would have been laughed out of physics class.

...Time, and matter, as physics shows, in agreement with my critique of reason and intuition, is neither one thing nor the other. It is precisely this that is the dynamic energy of reality. Looking for some definite end is precisely to miss the point altogether.
OK then, since you have been plainspoken in boasting about your knowledge of physics and cosmology, we might expect you won't have a problem finding in the scientific consensus a counterargument against these following statements:
1. The idea that the universe, with all its matter and energy, just popped up, out of nothing, violates the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass, which since I remember, were summarized in this fundamental science principle:

Matter and energy are neither created, nor destroyed, only transformed.


2. Unless these two laws have been abolished, the most reasonable position is that the Big Bang theory deals with the transformation of the universe from a previous state to another, not with it "bursting into existence".
Gary_M_Washburn wrote: I rather expect there is a dearth of philosophical knowledge here too. Scholasticism was a form of logic practiced in the middle ages in which strange conclusions were drawn from a sequence of carelessly defined terms. But the best example of this actually goes back to Plato. Refer to his dialogue Euthydemus. It may not show you what a good argument is, but is an excellent portrayal of a bad one. Are you here to do philosophy, or to make points?
Again, it's not my philosophical duty to excuse you from not being able to present a sound argument, just because making a point will close the door to your speculations. If you don't have assertions to make, but just provisional hypothesis and inquiries, then so be it and call it what it is. Be ready to accept that they can be challenged, while not resorting to supposed authority consensus to make them look as facts. At least show intellectual honesty: you cannot play it both ways.
Gary_M_Washburn wrote:
Actually, I believe I did state in an earlier post that truth is not a finished conclusion, but a relative confidence that we are being exhaustive in our questioning our facts, our perceptions, our prejudices, and our formal procedures. And that that confidence is an empty gesture unless it responds honestly to different views offered by others. All I see from you and Blinded is repetition of the same views and a dogmatic resistance to seeing any validity in differing views. And I also said that, actually, what identifies us as the person we each are is the dynamic in that confidence through which our views change in response to the pursuit of the rigor of questioning and responding as honestly and competently as possible to alternatives.
So you have not reached a finished conclusion to your speculations. That's cool, good luck with that.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 11th, 2017, 2:11 pm

Blinded,

It was you that brought up an alien invasion, using flimsy notions of causality and a crackpot example of philology. I don't mean this personally, I am not calling you a crackpot, but the sources you cite, roundly dismissed by the Wikipedia community as deserving of that term. I am, in great frustration, trying to bring the discussion back to fundamental philosophical issues because that is where the only possible progress can be made. The best way to prove yourself real to me is by proving me wrong. Getting me to alter my views with due cause and competent reasoning is the best way to show me that you, and your ideas, are not phoney. It is because things still do indeed come into existence, such as a properly momentous change of mind and reasoning capability, that cannot be anticipated, presaged or predetermined by prior events or conditions, that we can be and know who we are and that time is anything but a ticking away of perfect replicates of itself. But what cannot be referred to any antecedence cannot be explained to begin at all. And if that can be real only where difference can reach across systems, like our convictions and like all traditional models of the cosmos, otherwise hermetic in their isolation from such newness, then not only does this explain why there really is nothing, neither time nor space, 'before' the big bang, but why we are more than our cruelties to each other; and gives a powerful hint, but only a hint, as to how we might mitigate that cruelty. If you really want to discuss how we can be more human to each other, nothing would please me more, it is an issue very dear to me. But lets leave Sumerians and aliens out of it.
Here is my thesis:
The most sweeping term of change is the last least and final term of a reductive process meant to preserve our convictions, but ultimately changing them comprehensively in the character of the very rigor of that effort to preserve them. It is in the change that we find our humanity, but it is in the preservation of an inhuman constancy that we confine all of our terms of deliberating and contemplating everything up to the moment of that change. The human is a progression meant for inhuman constancy but bound for change through which its humanity, at last, and without precedent or 'source', comes into its own.

Post Reply