Friends and Readers and Members of the CAMP (Calvin, Augustine, Marx, Plato) Resistance…lend me your brains,
Get your coffee. Extra strong. You will need your brain lubed up good for this one. Don’t skimp…get the good stuff. This is Sanka level thinking.
To continue my foray into the world of theoretical physics…uh, minus the math of course. Dot, dot, dot. For the math is only useful insofar as one needs to quantify in a consistent theory the repeatable observational evidence with respect to a theoretical idea. That is, mathematics enables us to compartmentalize natural phenomena into a cannon of theoretical “truths” which can be accessed and built upon later, to form a theoretical “superstructure” as it were, of the workings of the natural universe as a whole. It is a clinical approach to observation…life without meaning, value, or feelings. It is a cold place of gleaming hospital corners and dust free annexes in buildings where the practical application of the laws of nature are transferred to the users in the matrix.
Theoretical physics is what I am into, but without the pesky mathematical hubbub of what is actually NOT existent (like numbers)…I thoroughly enjoy getting to the heart of what it actually IS that we are dealing with here, and letting the mathematical abstraction-ists sort out the x’s and the y’s and the Planck’s and so forth. They are welcome to do that…for in compartmentalizing the relative movement of actual objects in the universe, they must first build the compartment, and to do that takes just waaaaay to much paradoxical assumption for my liking, practicality in application or not; good morality cannot stem from Platonist assumptions, is my point, regardless of how advanced the technology.
For example, the assumption that space and time and energy and gravity are actually “things” when the whole of physics, except for IN the math, screams that this cannot possibly be true otherwise the entire universe would come to a screeching halt in the cul-de-sac of existential contradiction. Like, if “space” is a thing, it would be by necessity impossible for another thing to “occupy” it. For space, in order to be space, must only be itself, and must completely occupy itself (for even in water, you are not really “in” water…the water is in itself, and you are in yourself, by definition…you are once again merely speaking of relative movement (relationship) between you and the water, but “in” is the abstraction which signifies “immersion”, as opposed to “walking on”), and the usurpation of space in order for another body to exist “in” it would deny space its existential equality; it is tantamount to a metaphysical alteration where object and space become “one”, which is an impossible metaphysical and physical contradiction.
But say we concede that space is “displaced” around us (for those of you who ascribe to the notion of the physical “bending” of space time around super massive objects). Okay, but if you exist “in” space, then in what does space exist? If we say it exists in space, we have contradicted it–it exists in itself? Impossible. That is redundancy, not an explanation (John Immel exists in John Immel is merely another way of simply saying: John Immel is John Immel…and, duh, we already knew that; and by the way, thank goodness there is only one, LOL…TWO John Immels would make my head explode!).
If we say space exists in “nothing”, we have two options: the first is to declare that nothing is something, and we have contradicted the notion of nothing…and we say okay, nothing is something so what does the something exist in, and this goes on infinitely…it is like tic-tac-toe: a pointless enterprise. But if we say that nothing is truly nothing, then space is by definition infinite, without boundary, which means it can never be valued, and as such, there is absolutely no way to know whether an object exists IN it or next to it or what the relationship is, or whether space actually exists at all because there is no way to tell what IT actually is…it is “space”, and that’s about all you can say.
Interestingly enough, this is also true of God; for He also is I AM; and so where do we stand then with that? The only way we can possibly know Him then is to judge by the relativity of His movement towards us; or rather, our movement relative to Him. All of God’s truth must be revealed through the context of individual man because this is the only way He can be known. To say of God “He IS” is to say nothing of any practical consequence at all to humanity; this is merely the empirical notion of a mutually exclusive existential reality. God does not move in Himself, but we do…or rather, our being is observable finite (though actually infinite), where God’s is NOT. Therefore, God must move as a singular and relatively finite being with respect to us so that we can observe Him…in other words, He moves around us, or we around Him, so that observation of Him is possible. That is, God can appear as a singularity which is separated from us by “space”, which is, again, the observation of relative movement. But what the scientists want to do is say that that “space”, that observable difference between two objects, two “selves”, is actually another infinite self, but which cannot, without contradicting itself, ever move, because the nature of space is that it is the infinite constant in which everything–even God–exists. But this unmoving (relatively) object like space can never be observed; and thus it can never be said to actually exist.
You see, space does not move as a singular and relatively finite being by definition. WE move and exist in IT, according to science. And as such, it can never be said, itself, to move because an infinite thing cannot “go” anywhere other than itself, which is why the whole “bending” of spacetime by super massive objects makes no sense (more on this in a moment). It bends, so Einstein’s Relativity says…okay, be where does it bend TO? It bends to ITSELF, is all that can be said. But how can you observe something move when the movement is by definition of no difference whatsoever then to the original position of the infinite object..that is, the before position is of equal measurable value to the AFTER position? If the object is static and infinite, then there can be no functional or measurable or observable movement of any kind, is the whole point! Thus, the idea of space “bending” is a logical contradiction. A dead-end of reason. It makes no sense. Objects alone exist…any “bending” then is done by the OBJECTS which move relative to one another; and they are PHYSICAL objects which equally exist! Space cannot equally exist with the physical objects in it—it cannot ever be observed to be RELATIVELY finite; which means that it cannot ever be observed, period. And if it cannot ever be observed, it cannot ever be KNOWN.
So, to reiterate: space becomes an infinite entity that cannot even co-exist relatively with any object in it because it is impossible to observe. It cannot move…for as I explained, every movement is a redundant movement of itself into itself. And if space cannot move, it is impossible to say if we exist in it, because to declare this we need to be able to observe a commensurate reaction of the space around us. Without this ability to observe it, we cannot ever declare that it actually exists. And we certainly cannot give it a value. Which is precisely my point…but then, I deny that space is actual; for I declare it to be nothing more than the observational effect of relative movement between two or more physical entities. And I will debate anyone on this…and I mean anyone. There is no rational way to declare the actual existence of “space”. Space is nothing more than a mathematical construct used to reconcile the theoretical paradigm. Which is fine, but don’t turn your proofs into a primary consciousness. Once we become a function of “space”, then man is left to defend his finite being against the juggernaut of infinite, un-reproachable, all-consuming, other-worldly FORCE, against which he has not the tools to defend his own life; and he will be expected to submit.
And this is precisely why I go after physics so doggone much. Behind the blackboard is nothing more that another Wizard of Oz pulling the levers of politics and propaganda to compel the masses into the auspices of the self-sucking, humanity raping, bloated and gluttonous “collective”. You are nothing more than an extension of the invincible and irresistible force (or “grace”, if you are a reformation protestant) of those infinite and untouchable entities which determine everything.
But what about the “bending” of space (I mentioned this up top)…is this not considered proven via the observation of gravitational lensing. Is this not declared to be proof of the “bending of space time”? Truly, they pat themselves on the backs in many physics labs and declare that it most certainly is.
My question: what exactly are we seeing bend? Space, or the light?
The answer is the light. The light is OBSERVED to bend, not the space. It is a curious (but not when you realize they are fundamentally Platonist in their thinking) thing to me that physicists would immediately jump to the conclusion that that which cannot either be observed directly nor valued because it must be infinite by definition—that is “spacetime”–is the thing which is actually acting; instead of assuming the more logical conclusion: that the bending of light is merely an observational effect of the relative movement between to objects. But again, I have accused them repeatedly of being Platonist in their thinking, and this is merely another indication of that. For them, there is no question that what is beyond MAN’S ability to perceive–to know, apprehend, touch, or exist inclusively and conclusively with–MUST be that which really makes the whole damn thing work. Of COURSE they are going to assume that the force which controls is something that is beyond the scope of the barbarian masses to ascertain and to organize. Of course THEIR divine inspired gnosis is the plumb line for all reality. Of course, of course, of course. No…it couldn’t be that what is really acting is what any old slob can observe.
No…that would place existence in the hands of the mere laity. And that just can’t be acceptable. It would be an orgy of chaos and laissez-faire capitalism should the gods decide that just any old brute gets to apprehend the TRUTH of their own existence! We can’t have people owning the sum and substance of their own lives, can we? That wouldn’t be good for the world. People need to be FORCED into right thinking, after all. The god’s have decreed through the language of the universe (mathematics) that only a very few, very silly nerds get to describe reality and the meaning of life for the rest of us dolts.
But I digress.
So, Argo (he asks for you…LOL, well, if the Calvinist overlords can speak for you, why can’t I? Oh…yeah, right…that’s why: because I am not a Marxist)…so, Argo, what does any of this have to do with defeating and dismantling the tyrannical notions and flesh-eating, chattel slavery loving doctrines of reformation Christianity?
That is a very good question…and by the way, I really appreciate you bearing with me on all this stuff. I understand that this is tedious, but it really is all in service to rolling back existential/metaphysical reality to its lowest common denominator, and then building from there. For the neo-Calvinist despots, this root denominator is God’s “sovereign grace”, which is simply an altruistic euphemism for fatalistic (the WORST form of fatalism: divine) determinism. Nothing more. Sovereign grace is the presumption that YOU don’t actually exist…that you are merely the extension of some kind of dualistic moral force (which is a contradiction, of course). Perhaps you are “elect” to be a functional metaphysical extension of God, or the GOOD; or perhaps you are “elect” to be a functional extension of Sin Nature/Satan/Flesh (pick your flavor of gnostic bad-guy), or the EVIL. In either case, YOU have nothing whatsoever to do with the equation. YOU are not you, proper. You are an illusion; a farce. A pawn in a cosmic chess match of dualistic moral relativism, where the outcome is by definition meaningless. The totality of the EVIL equals the totality of the GOOD in a moral dichotomy, like gnostic dualism, which is precisely what Calvinism is. And this is THE root presumption in reformation theology. Man is nothing more than whatever primary consciousness has claimed him from the beginning of time. It is a game of chance for your body, mind and soul…except that chance never had anything to do with it. YOU never had a chance because YOU don’t really exist. “God” is the GOOD side of the dualistic moral coin, where flesh/man/sin nature/the devil is the EVIL side. The same coin, the same worth and value with no actual nor functional/practical difference between them; but endless death and war, with the consequences signifying nothing at all.
There is your Calvinism.
For me, however, I reject this idea entirely for the nonsense that it is. I seek to find that singularity which MUST exist; which must be physical, and thus must be the ONLY thing of a truly objective moral value. What is IT. Where is IT? That is the question. And once we can answer that…once we can get to the root of what actually is SELF, then we can proceed to move forward, to build our metaphysics in a rational way; to show how IT…how SELF interacts with OTHER. The other being God and other SELVES.
And that is where I find myself. Submitting that SELF and OTHER are ultimately infinite, physical singularities of equal worth; the only difference is two-fold (so far): The ability to OBSERVE “other”, and the ensuing and inexorable/inevitable relative movement which MUST occur for self and other to actually recognize each other; for the existential equation to be a perfect and utterly equal one-to-one ratio: for this is the answer to everything: everything EQUALLY IS. For self to recognize other, they must be existentially the SAME; utterly identical in existential WORTH and BEING. Everything that exists, exists equally. Period. THAT is the only truly objective moral statement.
And from here, we move forward. But again, we must go back initially. We must identify what is the infinite singularity of SELF, so that we can observe OTHER (or vice versa…for I submit that SELF is only recognized by observing OTHER first). And what do we mean by infinite? What does this mean in terms of abstractions such as “number”, or “how many”?
Okay…so let’s leap.
It’s a big jump. But remember, the movement and the space are only relative.
And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your particular level of interest, we must start in the cosmic ocean of particle physics. Of subatomic objects. Those physical little bits which are dimensionless, infinite, and utterly THEMSELVES, without any other qualifier which isn’t purely relative. Existing, but having no space or time or energy or mass. Just being “it”.
And it is here where we find the existential equality (yes, even with God) of the infinite particle “I AM”. These particles “are”, period. But what makes them, them, and God, Him? Hmm…what is God so that self can be self? And how many particles? And does it matter…does it mean anything. What is “one” infinite particle versus an infinite number of infinite particles, or several infinite particles? Is there any real difference. Are there more than one kind of particle? And if so, does THAT, does “kind” have a number, and does it matter? And where does God come in? Is HE a particle, too? Is the “god particle” really the God particle?
I submit that it is here we must start. For the dimensionless particles are the infinite singularities were self begins. And as such they are the utter core of objective moral value.
1 thought on “The Infinite Number of an Infinite Singularity: Why “other” and “self” are the only actual objects which can be said to “exist””
“Sovereign grace is the presumption that YOU don’t actually exist”
For the “millennials” — Calvinism means you are an NPC. You’re not a real player — you’re just one of the many objects the computer is controlling in the game.