In part one of this series we were looking at a couple of Zeno’s paradoxes–a temporal dichotomy paradox and a distance paradox–and I was applying Einstein’s coupling of space and time (each as a function of the other) to dismantle the apparent contradictions. As you may also recall, the explanations were loquacious and gratuitous, and you may or may not have gathered exactly how I arrive at my overall point: location is not a function of distance traveled, but is a relative function of the amount of existence of one object or agent compared to another, and this is accomplished because increased speed results in decreased time, or “age”; that is, the paradoxes were resolved by explaining that the object which is in motion ages less relative to the object which is static; or the faster object ages less relative to the slower object, depending on which paradox is in question. This means that it is possible for the “paradoxes” to be resolved (for there is no “infinite distance”; nor is there any “infinite time”) by the object which is moving or moving faster.
In other words, since time isn’t the same for the two objects being compared in either paradox, there is, in fact, no paradox at all.
See what I mean?
Long-winded and not a little confusing.
Thankfully, we don’t need to rely upon Einstein to resolve these interesting, though ultimately false, Greek paradoxes. Why? Because we have reason here. And truth is never rooted in abstract theories like Relativity, which in fact irrationally confirms the existence and causal power of what are wholly abstract concepts (like space, time, distance, acceleration, etc.); rather, truth is always rooted in consistent philosophical premises which are inexorably tied to a rationally explained, consciously observed and OBJECTIVE standard of TRUTH. That standard is, of course, individual human life. Any other standard must be false by definition, because existence of the individual SELF is the absolute and inexorable and infinite prerequisite for anything being being understood, observed, believed, thought or conceded (or the opposite of those)…anything by anyone.
So, for the purposes of metaphysical and epistemological truth– which unlike physics and mathematics is of the non-abstract variety–we can toss Einstein’s theory of Relativity and its requisite calculus out the proverbial window. I merely used those two paradoxes in the first installment of this series as examples of ideas which on the surface may seem legitimately to be at inexplicable odds, but when we apply the TRUTH of individual existence, which is infinite (the infinite IS, the SELF) and therefore is a real but relative existence, we can more easily see how the paradoxes vanish like so much morning mist.
And here Einstein, while his theory fails to arrive at the logical conclusion of his assumptions, at least begins to set the legitimate stage for the reality of all material objects. He correctly observes that “location” is relative from one object (or objects) to the next as a function of location (space) and time. However, he fails to declare that all of those ways we qualify the movement–speed, acceleration, distance, time–are not ACTUAL, and thus possess no efficacious control over objects, and his correct grasp on relativity should make this obvious. But I suppose that if math is how you explain why reality does what it does, and that is your singular belief, then it will naturally be quite impossible to concede this, even if it means the difference between contradicting your own theory of the relativity of movement and being consistent with it.
At any rate, the point I am trying to make is that once we understand and accept that the existence between material objects/agents is in fact relative, we can easily arrive at the logical conclusion that the existence of objects and agents is rooted in infinity. Meaning there is something inherent to the material object which IS, and IS absolute; and therefore, its ability to interact with OTHER must in fact be purely rooted in relative movement.
This of course begs the question, how can what is infinite and absolute be mitigated in the first place, in order that it can have relative existence with other objects which can be qualified and quantified via a system of conceptual abstractions generated by man’s consciousness?
The answer to this involves the one thing which represents intellectual kryptonite to many (if not most) physicists and other scientists the world over…something that they avoid discussing at all costs, which is precisely why they are no closer to discovering any type of existential (and thus actual) truth than since the discipline was first unleashed upon the Earth. And that thing is: consciousness.
And consciousness means God.
And that of course [sarcasm inserted here] is a completely separate issue from the “hard evidence”, and quantifiable “laws which govern”, of science, which arrogantly sees philosophy as a little more than a punchline, never once realizing that it was philosophers who first substituted X and Y for the apple and the moon, and then multiplied them together in order to explain a “natural law”.
And God is not physics, but metaphysics. Which must certainly make God a fake, and metaphysics mysticism.
Of course this could not be further from the truth. When human consciousness is no longer required to know that m(a) = F, and therefore is not required for it to be true, then I will concede that physics is FIRST in the existential chain, not metaphysics. But since this cannot happen without the person proclaiming thus contradicting their own argument at first utterance, I will rest comfortable in the knowledge that I am absolutely right about this.
But the irony of the whole physicist versus philosopher thing is this, and its actually pretty funny when you think about it: Despite his best efforts, and those of subsequent priests of the abstract cosmos, Einstein, as I said, and as I illustrated in the previous post in this series, actually comes closer to getting the metaphysics right (existence of bodies being relative with respect to each other) than the Greek philosophers who posited the previously mentioned paradoxes as proof that movement is illusion…yes, it turns out that those sage old men who ostensibly made getting the metaphysics right the sum and substance of their legacy, seem to have decided, in the interest of maintaining the observable irrationality of the paradoxes, that the concepts of time and distance and speed are decidedly NOT relative, but actual and causal. And if speed and distance and time can only be declared paradoxical with respect to the context of man if they are assumed to be actual, then the invariable nature of their paradoxical existence to man which led Zeno and Parmenides to deny the reality of movement should lead us to do the same. And further, we should understand that if movement is an illusion than so is humanity and its consciousness as well.
But when we think about this long enough, and assume that material reality is rooted in infinity (meaning that there is no singular “part”, or “particle” which is the root of all matter, and is self-contained and surrounded by space, and yet possesses no dimensions…I have an entire article on this topic alone), then we are forced to admit, I submit, that not only is movement NOT an illusion but it is impossible to concede that anything exists at all, including consciousness, unless we first concede that movement is actual and causal. Therefore movement may be rooted in the infinity of the material SELF of objects or agents, and thus is relative, but this does not make it illusory. It is not an abstraction, nor it is a mere concept which is a product of man’s mind. If movement does not actually exist, then man cannot either.
The only way for what I call the infinite universal material (IUM) which comprises all that actually exists to become object, agent, and consciousness (the prime example being man), then it must move relative to itself. It must possess “parts” of itself which exist as a function of separate and distinct being. And if all objects which are ARE, then all distinct objects are equally infinite. Which makes existence relative…and yet does not render it false. Because if I am here, and I am infinite at my root as a distinct object/agent from you, who is infinite and who is there, and our existence is thus equal (infinite) then how I got here and you got there can only be explained by movement. That is, our separate existences are both infinite and yet they are observably distinct (we observe the “space” between us). I must have arrived here to be me, infinitely, as the absolute context of my SELF, while you arrived there to be you, infinitely, as the absolute context context your SELF. In both cases, granted, the frame of reference, SELF, does not in fact move with respect to that same SELF, so I can see how anyone who follows the logic to this conclusion might decide that movement is an illusion. But in order to arrive here versus there from an indistinct initial infinite state (the IUM), I and you must have been placed here and NOT there, which implies movement. Therefore, the observable fact still remains that in order for me to have a consciousness to observe YOU and ME as distinct and separate, MY infinite non-moving context cannot apply to YOU. From my frame of reference, I do not move, yes, but you MUST, in order to always be THERE, because you cannot by definition be HERE, because here is the infinite me. And the converse is true. I move as a function of YOUR infinite unmoving context, and you move as a function of MY infinite unmoving context. So, again, it isn’t that movement is an illusion…on the contrary it must be real. Again, if I am infinitely here, then you must ALWAYS and infinitely move relative to me. And vice versa. Thus, and again, this makes movement indeed relative, but not a lie. Movement MUST exist, relatively, when two or more infinite “parts” come into being.
But we must not assume that ALL movement is linear. In fact, movement is at its root not linear, but existential. Infinite parts of an infinite source arrive at their particular location–that is, they MOVE there–when the infinite source is observed.
Therefore, I proclaim as axiomatic this: movement MUST exist when what is infinite is observed.
And this is where God comes in. But more on that later.
Existence as movement
Like I said, I believe, as a foundational tenet of my philosophy, that movement is not merely linear (directional), but is existential. That is, the “parts” of the IUM must move in the direction of their own distinct existence first, before any subsequent linear movement and thus interaction can occur. I would argue that not only is movement not an illusion, but that existence is movement. It is the movement of the SELF of all material objects, by which they posses the inherent capacity to cause and be caused upon in relative relationships with other parts. And, as the parts are infinite, the relative movement and combinations of these parts of the IUM are likewise infinite. An infinite number of infinite selves moving and interacting in an infinite number of ways. And from this we get the consciousness of man’s mind and the existence of everything in the cosmos. For that which is said to exist must be KNOWN and observed to exist first; thus, consciousness is required for the IUM to be qualified as existing.
This being the case, I admit that I am arguing that man is as necessary to the existence of what he observes and conceptually qualifies as existing as God is. Meaning that without the creation of conscious man, the creation of the rest of Creation, which is unconscious, is irrelevant. And as I have argued many times previously, that which is irrelevant cannot be defined as true; and what cannot be defined as true cannot be defined as anything at all. Therefore, the creation of the irrelevant is functionally equal to the creation of NOTHING at all. So, in order for God to have created something that can be relevantly qualified as SOMETHING, conscious and self-aware man is an absolutely necessary part of the creation equation, not merely a superfluous (or totally depraved) component.
Now, some may argue that I am trying to usurp God as the sole Creator, as the necessary “first” cause to all that proceeds into Creation. But understand that when I proclaim God the Creator, my understanding of how God does this has nothing whatsoever to do with the typically conceded doctrine of “ex nihilo”…that is, the idea that God created Creation out of “nothing”. This is an impossible contradiction in terms, and there is no way to rationally argue it. When one concedes ex nihilo, one concedes that all of Creation rests on an impossible contradiction, thus making Creation itself irrational and without any reasonable defense for its existence. This is the very definition of insanity, and is wholly untenable, and therefore it must be denied; and deny it I most vociferously do.
But contrary to this, I argue that all which exists is a function of what I have called the Infinite Universal Material (again, IUM), which moves into an infinite number of infinite parts which are moving infinitely in relative relationships with each other upon conscious observation. And this observation is demanded, for otherwise there can be no “creation” of that which is infinitely itself, and beyond that has no other definition. For that which is infinitely itself precludes all rational or relevant definitions, qualifications, or quantifications, even “existence”. And again, that which is utterly undefinable and irrelevant cannot possibly be efficacious for anything. Therefore, its functional meaning and purpose is zero; and its existential essence can only be rationally defined as nothing.
However, when what is infinite is observed (and in this case I argue, by God), then it is no longer infinite, by definition. It is relatively finite, which means that it now has an actual definition: that which is NOT God. This is an excellent start for everything (as well as the only start). You have the explosive combination which must result in inexorable creation: The Creator, and that which is able to be Created. Because God did not create out of nothing. He possesses the infinite ability to create, and the IUM is that which possesses the infinite ability to be caused upon by God’s ability to create. This innate ability to be caused upon is the root of the existence of every material thing which is. It is the infinite SELF of all objects. For example, before the apple can fall from the tree, it must possess the inherent ability to be caused upon by the gravity of the Earth FIRST. See? There is a SELF which must be an IS in order that it can infinitely and perpetually be caused upon by whatever else it is observed to interact with. Before I can see you, you must possess the inherent ability to be seen by me. And vice versa. And this innate ability to be caused upon (which results in the ability to “cause” effects in other objects, which are conceptual abstractions at their root…for in actuality, effect always precedes cause, making “cause and effect” purely a conceptual abstraction; or better said, the ability to be effected is the “cause” of everything which exists and their relative interactions)…yes, this infinite ability to be caused upon is the metaphysically absolute essence of everything.
But “NOT God” is not, alone, relevant. It has a definitive property/definition, but it is not efficacious TO any purpose. What is required for that is that what is created must A. be consciously aware that it is an existent SELF, which is NOT God, and B. that God is God; that is, God is He who has the power of creation. And this is done via the ability of the conscious created agent to conceptualize SELF as juxtaposed to what is NOT self.
But it is man who gets to, and MUST, be the one who conceptualizes and thus qualifies Creation’s relevant, functional, efficacious existence, which makes MAN the objective standard of all morality and truth, not God. Meaning creation was FOR man that man may recognize it and give it its purpose, meaning, and relevancy. For he is of Creation, and he is also the infinite and singular context of its ability to KNOW SELF, and therefore to BE, which is that from which all TRUTH is a direct derivation. For without man, creation could not have been made by God; for it would have been a wholly irrelevant act, with no purpose. And he who can argue that God is the creator of the irrelevant is he who can argue that God is the Creator of NOTHING. And if God is in fact the Creator of nothing, then by definition He is not the Creator at all.
That’s enough for now…a lot to digest and to ponder, I know. Undoubtedly I’ve not convinced all of you (possibly not even any of you) that my rationale behind the infinite nature versus relative existence is true. But this is something I must explain, as much for myself as anyone else. I am looking for a rational explanation of existence, and this will not happen if conceptual abstractions, like the “laws of physics/nature” or any other determinist philosophy, continue to be the causal power behind what we observe to be real, which must include humanity itself. If this is true, then so are Zeno’s paradoxes, and the slower runner overtaking the faster one or your arriving at the bus stop on time is purely a lie; an illusion. We never pass the slow, and we never arrive where we want to go. The logical conclusion of this is that we never are who we think we are.
Which makes us…nothing.
In our next installment, we’ll examine the rationale behind “elementary particles”.