Category Archives: Objective Relativity

Hume’s Guillotine Has No Blade (Part TWO): What is Hume’s Law as it relates to reality?

In the last article I laid out the basic equation for resolving Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma. Here it is again, slightly modified:

Truth (X) = Purpose (of X) = Application (of X—where X cannot be applied either implicitly or explicitly as IS X and simultaneously IS NOT X)

The objective ought, then, is the non-contrary application of truth.

*

Hume’s “is-ought” dilemma in brief:

Hume asserts that when dealing with the question of morality—what one ought do—there is an inexorable disconnect between the non-hypothetical, objective IS of reality, and the hypothetical, subjective OUGHT of moral imperatives. For example, if God tells us that “Thou shalt not kill”, then, as a moral commandment (as opposed to a legal one, which it technically is, but for this example we will assume it’s moral), it can be more specifically rendered “Thou ought not kill”. The reason that Hume declares the ought statement fundamentally subjective is because what one chooses to do—choice being intrinsic to morality and thus “ought”—can never alter the fact that what IS absolutely and necessarily IS. The IS, you see, of anything observed and declared so, is  rooted in the irreducible and absolute reality which informs choice, and thus the ought implied by choice—or more specifically, implied by volition—must inevitably affirm objective reality, regardless of what it is; and thus whatever one chooses, and whatever one recommends others choose (ought to do), will equally affirm objective reality, making the choices and the oughts themselves purely subjective. IS IS, and always will be, and therefore it is entirely objective. OUGHT is always subjective, on the other hand, because it is predicated on a fundamentally stable and unchanging reality (as said, the objective IS). What one chooses to do may alter how one observes reality, but it does not change reality at its root, because reality is absolute and immutable. It exists outside of one’s wishes and choices and therefore one’s particular morality…one’s  “oughts”. Therefore morality, being rooted in volition and thus on “ought”, is always fundamentally subjective. It has no fundamental meaning beyond the capriciousness of cognition, and the the non-substantive nature of the abstract.

Further, by definition, choice is uncompelled, and thus it isn’t possible to declare what one MUST CHOOSE—or, what one objectively ought to do—because MUST CHOOSE implies “compelled choice”, which is a contradiction in terms (in the strictest sense, I mean…while it is true that one can be forced to choose this or that, if there is no option to not make the choice at all, then the choice itself is a false one). And this is why morality is about what one ought to do, not what one WILL or MUST do, further supporting the argument that morality is subjective.

So the Humean is-ought moral distinction means that one can never presume that one ever objectively ought to do this or that, as though what one ought to do is as objective as the frame of reference—the objective existential “IS”, of reality—to which all oughts are inexorably and naturally obligated. The assumption that oughts can be as objective as the IS of truth—as objective as the reality which is objective irrespective of man’s volition—is, according to Humean moral understanding, a substantial error of logic. What one ought to do must always be entirely subjective, since reality remains reality regardless of the ought-choice. What one ought to do is always hypothetical, and thus any categorical imperative—that one always ought make a specific choice as though it has any objective, immutable, bearing on reality—is impossible. Morality thus is always subjective.

And all of this is fine except for one thing:

It is completely wrong.

Hume’s assertions about morality and the separation between the is of reality and the ought of how the conscious observer shall engage his will in response to reality is, in all honesty, the most egregious relational error with respect to morality that I have ever had the displeasure of examining. And the fact that so many intellectuals—and atheists in particular, who are the most ironic “intellectuals” on earth, and whose apologetics are the most spurious and convoluted you will ever have the misfortune of examining—hang their ethics on such folderol leaves one wondering just where to find the “intellect” in the “intellectual”.

END (Part TWO)

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part Two)

Death is an action without a consequence; birth is a consequence without an action. What I mean by this is that in both cases, birth and death, the relationship between cause and effect is irrationally severed. It is said that you are born, but if we define the birth of you as your “coming into being”, then the question is how can one be born if one does not exist in the first place? How can you experience birth if birth is the fundamental beginning? There is no YOU to be born prior to your birth, and so the consequence is birth but there is no action which involves you at all. The action which is entirely mutually exclusive of you somehow concludes with you. Frankly, this makes no sense at all. I don’t care how you twist it or what mathematical, evolutionary, determinist magic you try to invoke to square the infinite circle.

And death is like birth except that in this case, the action is of you but the conclusion is entirely absent you. You die, but since death represents the oblivion of you—the complete absence of you—then the consequence of dying has absolutely nothing to do with you at all. You could not have experienced your death, since to experience something you must exist—existence is a prerequisite to experience. This is axiomatic. Further, how do we make any claims about you once you have died? If we define death as the categorical absence of you, or the non-existence of you, then who exactly are we talking about when we speak the life one lived prior to death? If death represents the utter non-existence of one who once lived, then there is no longer any ONE upon which to hang the life which is said to have been lived. We cannot speak of so and so doing this, or so and so doing that if, so and so is entirely nonexistent. But if we insist that so and so did actually do this or that even though so and so doesn’t exist, then we concede implicitly that existence itself is transitory. Existence is not fundamental, but is itself, merely a mist which fades. Existence then cannot be trusted to be objective, and thus any arguments to the objective and empirical nature of reality and truth collapse.

There are a few ways that reconciliation of these contradictions is attempted, and all of them fail the test of rational consistency. One is to deny the existence of YOU qua YOU entirely…to insist that the Conscious Self is purely illusory; a hiccup of the otherwise perfect and perfectly determined mathematical, perpetual cosmic evolution. This rank nonsense was debunked in part one of this article series.

Another explanation is that death is in fact an illusion; that you transition to an after life, as the Christians or Jews or Muslims claim. The problem here is that Christianity makes no such claim about birth, and as far as I know neither does Judaism or Islam. Yet we cannot claim that death is merely a transition but birth is absolute, for both are the exact same relationship between being and non-being. You see, if death is merely a transition into an alternate state of existence, then so must be birth. For going from nothing to something is no more rational than going from something to nothing. In other words, if man does not go from absolute being (life) to absolute non-being (death) then he likewise does not go from absolute non-being to absolute being. If there is a life after death then there must concordantly be a life before birth.

The reality is that only when we accept that the Conscious Self is a constant—that the position of the Observer is to be the reference for an otherwise infinitely relative reality—does one’s existence as a conscious being begin to make sense. It is a hard truth to swallow, for it runs contrary to all popular religion and philosophy, which accept either death, or both death and life, as infinite and absolute bookends to a purely transitory existence as One who is utterly aware of himself, his environment, and possesses the capacity to conceptualize both, as well as the relationship between them, and from that prescribe definitions, and from these meaning, and from meaning, truth, and from truth, morality. But One who is so absolute as this cannot also be rendered subjective and finite via birth and death as they are commonly understood.

END Part TWO

Birth and Death: Paradoxical Bookends of the Absolute Self (Part One)

The idea of death is something I have rejected from a philosophical perspective…that is, from a perspective of capital-T Truth. I am okay with death form the purely emprical side of things…that eventually our bodies give out for whatever reason and we are returned to the dust from whence we sprung. But from a rational position, one where fundamental epistemological conceptual consistency is the only real basis for knowing anything at all (which is true), nothing about death makes sense. And birth, being death’s corollary in this regard, is in the same position. You see, if we only accept truth based upon empirical “evidence” then we can never arrive at a rational, relevant, and meaningful answer to the question “what is man?”. For man is more than his senses; more than just his body. If he were not, then consciousness would be impossible. The Singularity of the Self…that is, the constancy which is necessary for consciousness, and from consciousness, observation, and from observation, conceptualization, and from conceptualization, meaning, and from meaning Truth, is utterly denied when we accept that man is merely a transient phenomenon; that there is nothing constant and absolute about his Self; that consciousness is entirely finite; it begins with blankness, and returns to blankness, which fundamentally nullifies all which it had learned and spoken in the meantime.

Consciousness is where the empiricists and determinists and objectivists completely fail in their philosophy, which is why they relegate it to mere epiphenomenon—an illusion, with a purely subjective ontology. Consciousness, by their standards, remains “inside”, whilst “objective truth” is that which is found on the “outside”. That this renders consciousness mutually exclusive from objective existence, and thus makes conscious understanding impossible, and thus any claims about what constitutes objective existence and truth likewise impossible, which voids their entire philosophy…well, that never seems to come up much. But we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Consciousness cannot spring from the abyss of absolute unconsciousness (pre-birth) flourish for a while to grasp all manner of empirical and objective truth, and then return to the abyss (post death). The 1 of consciousness cannot be born from and then die to the 0 of oblivion. Consciousness, whether we want to accept it or not, is a Singularity; it is Absolute. The existence of You is predicated on You being a constant. If there is no constant/absolute frame of reference for You, then You is impossible.

You cannot be a function of that which is outside of you, because then You are not actually You. And You cannot be merely relative to that which is outside of You because then there is no fundamental constancy to You, in which case you have no grounded frame of reference by which to define “You” in the first place. And You, and by that I mean Your Self, and by that I mean your Conscious Awareness of Self, cannot merely be some (perhaps complicated or mysterious) kind of cosmic or evolutionary illusion because that begs the question: “An illusion of what?” And that question has no answer because the “what” is that which the proposition (that consciousness is purely an illusion) denies can even exist in the first place. And consciousness cannot likewise be a non-illusory product of some unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative process because that creates the self-defeating assertion that consciousness is direct function of unconsciousness….that somehow consciousness can step out of the absolutely unconscious processes from which it directly springs, observe these processes from a specific and distinct frame of reference, and proceed to make claims about the “objectivity” of the utterly unconscious determinative nature of consciousness.

The only options we have are: 1. That Consciousness IS, and is Singluar, and thus does not come from the Nothing which precedes birth and return to the Nothing which follows death; or 2. That it is a function of either a purely relative existence, unconscious biological/evolutionary determinative processes, or is an illusion. In other words, that consciousness is in fact entirely unconscious.

And only one of thes two options makes consciousness actually possible.

You ARE; and You are Constant. I don’t really care what objectivists, empiricists, scientific pseudo-philosophers, or other nihilistic determinists think—I have listened to their positions on this for years and years and it never changes and never manages to wiggle its way out from under the rock of self-defeating contradiction which crushes it to dust. I have heard everything, from appeals to quantum physics to cosmic evolution to taxicab geometry (where apparently squares are also circles…which, no; this is verifiably false all day long). Any and all attempts to negate consciousness as being what it self-evidently IS fail, always fail, and will fail forever.

So…with that being said, how now can we proceed to understand birth and death from a rationally consistent point of view? Do they even exist at all. Well, subjectively, perhaps. But objectively, no. More in part two.

END PART ONE

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part Two, Conclusion)

Taking a cue from quantum physics itself—and it is important to understand this, for I am basing my arguments not upon mererly my own conjecture, but on conclusions physics itself ineluctably makes about the nature of reality—beyond a certain point the reduction of the physical literally stops being emprical. Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be sensed, because it has simply been reduced too far (it is too small). Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be said to possess mass, which means it does not, in the emprical sense, occupy space—it is volume-less; it no longer exists dimensionally, and thus it also posssesses no temporal value. In other words, empirically speaking, it exists no where and at no time. Physical reality at this point cannot be verified empirically, but is only rationally inferred.

The evidence for the rational assumption of reality’s existence beyond the place of physicality—beyond the senses—is the mathematics, which are a purely abstract cognitive contrivance…that’s the whole point of math. Math, like music notes on paper, implies the existence of physical reality, but it is not physical reality itself. For if it was, then it would no longer be math, it’s as simple as that.

The effects of these non-emprical yet existent objects, which are referred to as quanta, are said to possess rational existence because they mathematically correlate. In other words, the effects on the physical universe of the quanta are predicted by the math. When atoms are smashed and certain effects recorded, the effects occur in ways that the mathematical rendering of quanta predict, with sufficient repeatability, and this is how, not via direct empirical observation, the quanta (massless, timeless, spaceless particles of reality) are said to objectively exist.

And here we see that empiricism and objectivity are completely distinct. Quantum physics, if we accept its validity, proves that reality does not need to by physical to be be utterly objective, actual, existent, and real.

I have no reason to believe that the mathematics are spurious, (though I understand that by the nature of quantum physics there is always some endemic degree of uncertainty, and this is likely because mathematics is essentially the breaking up of infinity into units, which makes absolute claims ultimately impossible, but science nevertheless is able to get close enough). I’m sure the math is perfectly functional; I have no doubt that it works, and I have no problem assuming that quanta exist and act the way science describes and accepting the mathematical context.

That isn’t my point.

I have no problem with science when it functions as science, and not as philosophy; I do not doubt the mathematical data…believe me, I haven’t the abstract skills to know the difference between good or bad calculus—that’s well beyond my skill set. I’d no sooner argue with Stephen Hawking about the veracity of mathematics than I would a pilot about the veracity of flight. My problem here is the abject conflation of that which is rationally inferred with that which is empirically validated.  Quantum physics is simply not empirical science, even by science’s own definitions (though utterly absent science’s admission, which is hypocritical). The fact that quantum particles must be rationally inferred through the abstracton of mathematics doesn’t necessarily negate the validity of the claims that they nevertheless objectively exist.

My goal here is to show that at some point we must admit that existence—that that which can be said to objectively be—is not strictly a matter of physical, empirical proof, but also, if not ultimately, a matter of reason, and reason is cognitive, and cognition is consciousness. In other words, at some point we must admit that it is the observer, the Conscious Ones, who must declare what is real and what is not; what exists and what doesn’t; what is true and what is lie. Quantum physics is evidence that objective realty does not exist outside of man—or specifically, his consciousness; his ability to conceptualize himself, his environment, and their relative relationships, but wholly includes him, affirms him, necessitates him, relies upon him, and heeds him. This is not sollipsism, but it is, at root, an acknowledgement that reason—rational consistency—can be a plumb-line for truth and realtiy, not only empiricism. Existence and truth do not end at the limit of observation or sensory experience. Quantum physics shows us that just because you cannot observe that something is there, you can still reason that it is there, and that that reason suffices as objective evidence that it is indeed there. One does not, and cannot, sense it is there—for it is utterly beyond observation—yet one may still objectively know that it is actually there; actually true. And this is, again, because of reason. Reason, which is cognitive, which is conscious, is a means, and I would even argue is the fundamental means, of accessing objective realtiy and objective truth.

END

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part One)

The broader point I am trying to make with the last two articles on the lie of the “smallest particle”—a particle with no dimensions and no sub parts, which physics acknowledges as existing—is that at some point, no matter how hard we ignore it, or do not acknowledge it, or lack the wisdom or critical thinking skills to see it, empiricism runs out. At some point the ability of the observer (man) to sense reality (that is, using the sensory transmitters of taste, touch, vision, hearing, smelling) breaks down and can only be accessed consciously. Now, by “consciously” please understand that I am not talking sollipsism or mysticism or faith, I am talking reason…the rational (non-contradictory) integration of concepts, which is a process that is wholly cognitive. That is, is a product of man’s mind, and not a product of his senses. Indeed, I submit that the ability to conceptualize precedes the senses in the rational metaphysical chain…or perhaps better said, the senses are a function of man’s ability to conceptualize his existential context (‘enviroment’) and not the other way around. But an expansion on that topic is best left to another article.

At any rate, speaking of mysticism, I submit that the objectivists, empiricists, scientific determinists, scientific rationalists are the real mystics, for they are the ones who ignore where reason takes them, insisting that only that which can be sensed is objective; and when the senses break down, as in quantum physics, conflate the part of physical reality which can literally only exist as mathematical equations, which are catagorical functions of man’s (the obeserver’s) ability to conceptualize, which is the foundation of consciousness…yes, they conflate the mathematical equations with empirical proof; that is, the wholly conceptual (math) is the empirical nature of the quanta.

Impossible.

No, my friends, the objectivists, rationalists, and determinists are the true hypocrites…are the true peddlers of determinist, mystic forces which act as the tyrannical overlords of creation and reality, with the minds of men—those very minds which create the formulas which describe the quantum universe in the first place—relegated to rank illusion, with only those “enlightened” souls able to know the truth. Men, you see, do not create the mathematics which describe the unobservable-yet-still-empirical reality of the quantum universe, they merely “discover” them. And only those given the “grace to perceive”—the particular intellectual proclivities necessary to grasp their hyper-complex design—can really understand. The rest of us are to simply accept their scientific wisdom on faith, as though a divine command, and to punt the explicit-yet-conveniently-ignored rational contradictions (e.g. waves of spacetime) into the abyss of “unknowable mystery”.

But here’s the truth: Objectivists, determinists, empricists openly (though they may not know it themselves, for they are much blinded by hubris and religious zeal) deny the right of anyone else to hold mystic ideas. Everyone else is a fool. Everyone else is deceived and a deceiver. Oh, they can demand fealty to their gods and goddesses—the quanta revealed through quantum theory and the cosmic noise generated by the Church of Billion-Dollar-Atom-Smashers—but the rest of humanity…well, god forbid that they should ever give any mind or deference to other divine ideas. Only the pernicious, mendacious, indolent, and simple would deny the supremacy of the gods of science. Only the irredeemably immoral, the unwashed barbarian, would reject the enlightened sight of  the Preisthood of the White Lab Coats.

Yet what is the difference between “Empirical Church” and other churches? We are told that the difference is that there is no actual faith involved in believing the “scientific evidence”, and this is because it is observable; tangible; physical; actual; sense-able; that science believes is observably distinct from this or that, or him or her. That what they believe can be seen and measured. It requires no more faith to believe in the truth of the quanta than it does a bowl of oatmeal.

But does it?

Can you observe that which is dimensionless, possessing no sub parts, and thus existing at no place, and in no time? In other words, can you empirically observe that which isn’t actually there?

I think you know the answer to that one.

And the answer is—faith.

END part one

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 4-Conclusion)

Picking up where we left off in part four:

If space is itself a thing, through their implicit objectification via gravitational waves, then in what vacuum does space exist that it may be displaced in waves? And why should this vacuum—the vacuum in which space exists in order that it may be displaced—not also be objectified and thus subject to displacement via some cosmic episode? And if that is the case, then this second vacuum must then occupy another vacuum in which it is now displaced. And so on and so on and so on, as the fallacy of infinite logical reducibilty determines. Science has, in addition to discovering literal black holes, dug for itself a figurative black hole in the form of complete rational inconsistency.

LIkewise is the case with time—for we should not ignore the “time” component of “spacetime” waves. If time can fluctuate—be displaced in waves—then it is by definition not fundamental…it is not absolute. Time is a finite continuum, and the logical implications for this profound. The declaration of “gravitational waves” mean that temporality itself can shift into different spatial locations. In the same way thus that gravitational waves imply, contradictorily, variations in the where of space, they imply variations in the when of time. Except that time cannot itself have a when, and this is because it is the when.

[Note: The point of the metric tensor (the mathematical coordinate system of “spacetime”) is to graph both the where of X and the when, as “when” and “where” are corollary. And this because space implies relative movement (of objects), and movement implies temporality. It is important to note then that according to the metric tensor (as well as logic in general) both when and where are a continuum upon which the physical universe is perpetually moving. Thus though an object may appear to be sitting still to an observer, it is constantly in spatial flux. Because when and where (time and space) are corollary it is erroneous to claim that an object which is sitting still is only moving temporally and not spatially, as though movement through space (or upon the spatial component of the continuum) can be distinct from movement through time. An object is always moving simultaneously through space and time, again because these things are corollary, which is why the metric tensor is referred to in the decidedly un-distinct “spacetime”. In other words, existence is perpetually active…existence, or being, is itself movement. An object which is sitting still is nevertheless moving through space via—what I would posit as—the root action of being, just as it is moving through time via—what I would posit as—the root moment of now. As for the observer, and this should perhaps be examined in detail in a later article—he is always only directly observing the root “being” and the “now” of any given object. All object states of linear travel and/or future an past are entirely conceptual.]

So time then, according to the implied logic of gravitational waves as fluctuations in spacetime, has a specific temporal value at any given moment. In other words, time (somehow) exists in time…time itself is subordinate to an external temporal continuum. And if this is so then to what temporal continuum is that second temporal continuum subordinate?  And then to what temporal continuum is that third subordinate? And so on and so on, into the same black hole of reiteration and redundancy where pace has been so thoughtlessly cast.

The conclusion of this article series then is thus: I am not (necessarily) doubting that physicists have recorded something subliminal perhaps directly related to the black hole collision observed in 2015, but they most certainly did not record “disturbances in the curvature of spacetime…that propagate as waves outward at the speed of light.”

END part three—conclusion

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravity Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 3)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagatein all directions away from the source like waves inwater caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

Referencing back to part two of this article series, the logical fallacy discussed there relative to space and time is what science commits when it clams that “gravity waves are fluctuations in spacetime”: space and time manifest volume and temporality to themselves; they act relative to themselves, which is redundant and contradictory. Space and time are objectified as distinct, not fundamental (i.e. the context for the relative existence of physical reality-that is, physical objects), and then subsequently asserted to act as distinct objects relative to themselves. By both presuming a fundamentality and irreducibility to spacetime and obejctifying spacetime as a distinct object which interacts as a material object with other objects in the physical universe by being displaced in waves as a consequence of certain massive object interaction, science reveals its ignorance of the difference between metaphysics and physics, and pretends that they are one and the same, and that the metaphysical manifests as the physical, and vice versa. Which constitutes an outright embarrassing intellectual error on the part of those (physicists and mathematicians) who are widely considered to be the brightest minds humanity has to offer. This is not surprising, as the scientific community at best pays lip service to metaphyscis, and when it does it is usually in the form of some scientist who happens to be an adherent of some organized religion who is espousing scientific phenomenon as mrerely proclaiming the wonders of the Divine. In other words, proclaiming that science constitutes a validation of the mystical. And that’s not actually dealing with the metaphysics so much as punting them into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”…which is it’s own brand of codswallop that we won’t be dealing with here.

Here’s the problem: Space and time simply cannot be relative to the physical universe without fundamentally nullifying their very nature through redundancy and self-nullifying contradiction. Space (we will deal specifically with space here), once objectified, becomes a distinct entity itself—the vacuum, in reality, the absence of existence (that is, the absence of that which IS, is really a metaphysical context in which the relative relationships of those things which do exist becomes possible), becomes physical…it becomes not the absence of that which IS but something which IS, physically, itself. This being the case, space must have its own location, a location which is now relative to other objects which physically exist. In other words, space must now occupy space. And thus by occupying space may thus be displaced as “waves of gravity”.

But if space is actually what is implied and outright proclaimed by science and all rational and conventional defintions…that is, if space is indeed a vacuum—is the absence of that which exists—and thus does not and cannot occupy space, then it is, ipso facto, fundamental. For nothingness, by definition, is by nature infinite. But the infintity of the metaphysical is of course not directly (or, perhaps better said, not physically) compatible with the finity of the physical. Space, being the vacuum, and not a thing itself, thus exists nowhere. Thus, it cannot be displaced in waves, for there is literally nowhere for it to go. Waves by definition indicate a displacement of the medium which is “waving”, therefore, there can be no waves in a medium which cannot by its nature be displaced.

END part 3

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason does Not (Part 2)

Gravitational Waves areripplesin spacetime…”

“‘Wavesof changing spacetime would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

*

Space cannot both be a vacuum and occupy a vacuum…e.g. “waves of spacetime”, where space, the vacuum, is displaced into the vacuum of itself.  And time cannot both be temporality and occupy a temporal location. In other words, time cannot have or possess specific temporal value—e.g. “the end of time; the beginning of time”. It cannot fluctuate with space in waves or ripples because these fluctuations imply shifting temporal changes within time itself—that time, can move with space to shift its own temporal location. This is simply impossible, because it contradicts time itself. Time cannot itself posses a specific temporal value which can then shift with space in the presence of gravitational changes. This is a redundancy which nullifies the very root essence of time.

Let’s look at some other examples of science, and material philosophy, which contradict themselves by presumptuously reducing their own irreducibles:

-Energy cannot both be the measure of action potential (the ability to do work) and the instantiation of action (work) and possess energy, itself. That is, energy cannot both be the manifestation of work and a thing which works.

-Gravity cannot both be that which pulls and a thing which possesses the capacity to pull. That is, gravity cannot both be the manifestation of gravitational pull and be a thing which pulls on other things.

-Existence, which is considered the irreducible context for Realtiy in empirical and objectivist philosophies, cannot itself be a thing which exists. That is, the context in which material realtiy exists cannot be objectified as a distinct object which distinctly exists. Existence cannot exist in its own existential context. This is a redundancy which contradicts and nullifies Existence. This of course is the inherent self-defeating fallacy in the metaphysical claim “existence exists”. It is a futile proposition which attempts to correlate the metaphysical to the physical, which is of course a very noble endeavor, but here the endeavor fails. To claim that existence exists is to state the redundancy that existence possesses existence; that it does what it is. Which is a rational error. Existence, being fundamental, somehow yet acts in order to verify itself to itself. In other words, to state that existence exists is to objectify existence as not a metaphysical context for the interaction of the physical, but as a distinct object which is specific from that which exists “in it”, or “in its context”, and thus is not a basis for object existence, but an object which is merely relative to other objects. “Existence exists” undermines existence as being fundamental and primary.

And more to the point of the redundancy of “existence exits”…let’s use “tree” as an example of the rational error committed when material objects are correlated and conflated with their value upon the greater environment (e.g. other objects). It makes no sense to claim that a tree, for example, itself, possesses “treeness”. That the tree does tree. Treeness is entirely irrelevant to the tree, itself; just like existing, or “existence-ness” is entirely irrelevant to existence, itself. “Treeness” is the role the tree plays relative to other objects in order that the observer may conceptualize “tree” as distinct from say “bird” or “dog”. Treeness, or “doing tree”, is a relative action that is a consequence of the tree’s existence relative to its environment. “Treeness” is a concept that results from the tree plus its environment plus the observer. In other words, the tree cannot be a tree to itself. The tree does not act relative to itself. In the same way existence does not act relative to itself. Existence does not exist any more than the tree does treeness. Existence, once objectified as a thing which exists, only exists because it acts relatively to other objects in a greater environment. And this means that existence is not in fact primary, which means it is not irreducible, which means empirical and objectivist metaphysics are incomplete. I propose that the reason objects act relatively to other objects, and why the observer observes and conceptualizes these relative distinctions to create epistemology and ethics, is because they are able. Ability is the singular commonality which binds all material realtiy, then. Ability is the metaphysical primary. And you would not say that “ability is able”, because ability doesn’t need to be able. Ability implies action, and action implies that which acts. And that which acts is what is able. We could even say that “that which exists is able to exist” if we still feel the need to inject existence into metaphysics. This makes existence a rational metaphysical concept because it recognizes that existence is in fact reducible. If we remove ability then we are left with “that which exists, exists”, which is merely another way of stating the tautology “existence exists” (“existence does existence”) which is meaningless. We could say that “existence implies that which exists” if we are going to force the issue of existence as metaphysical primary. But this begs the question “how does that which exists exist?”. And the answer of course is “because it is able to exist’.

END part two

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part TWO)

The Wikipedia article on the expanding universe, cited in part one of this article series, does not acknowledge the necessity of the observer to Reality, particularly with respect to movement, and ignores the distinction between movement qua movement and relative movement. Instead it appeals to the artifice of the metric tensor to explain how the universe does not actually expand, and that space and objects in space do not actually move, and yet it kinda does and they kinda do. I submit that science has become, in some fundamental way, the pseudo-philosophical, and albeit implied, art of rejecting the observer as entirely superfluous to Reality, Existence, and thus by extension, Truth and Ethics. But instead of simply admitting that science has no frame of reference for describing (the fundamental nature of) the observer, and thus conceding that he should be left to other schools of thought and other methodologies for his description, science functionally declares his “objective” non-existence as observer-qua-observer (or, better stated, his “ultimately non-efficacious existence”) an empirical fact, and this  because the observer is scientifically revealed to be so.

I am not entirely certain why science promotes this folderol…a focused and overt dissertation on the subject has never been submitted. Nevertheless, what is overt, and painfully obvious, is that science has no rationally consistent methodology for describing and explaining the observer. The observer lies completely beyond the scope of science, and for some reason this is unacceptable to the scientific community. Is it arrogance? Bullish pride? Who knows…but by rejecting the observer as purely ephemeral at best, it attempts to rectify the inrinsic contradictions this rejection of the observer necessitates…for example, that the universe is not expanding, and space and objects in space do not actually move, except that it kinda is and they kinda do. And the metric tensor is a perfect example of an artifice used to reconcile the contradiction.

“Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”  [Bold print added for emphasis]

A few problems with this…I will attempt to plot the inconsistencies as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Earlier, I stated that the claims that “neither space nor objects in space move”, and “the universe does not expand into anything, and does not require space to exist outside of it” are correct. However, it is important that I qualify my agreement as being in some way quite superficial; that is, my agreement terminates once a deeper examination of these claims in the context of the full Wikipedia quote commences (see the beginning of part one for the full quote). And unfortunately, the examination needs only be cursory.

While it is true that objects “in space” do not move, the article, as I have mentioned, fails to qualify the meaning of the word “move”. That is, it does not make the important distinction between movement qua movement, which certainly does not exist, because this is impossible in a vacuum, and relative movement, which certainly does. In a vacuum, object A, alone, does not move, because there is and can be no relevant, measurable, definable distinction between, say, A at position X and A at position Y. A is simply “in” the vacuum…there is no “where” then to its existence except itself, as it were. It just exists. It is A qua A. But if we add object B to the vacuum, then there is no longer the existence of A qua A, but also the relative existence of A to B. And now there can be a relevant, measurable, and definable distinction between A’s position at X and its position at Y—as relative to B. In this context then, A does in fact move, it’s simply that the movement is relative, not absolute. And the converse of this is also true—that B may move relative to A. Of course, it is the necessary role of the observer to determine which object, A or B, is to be the reference for the relative movement between the two. Is A revolving around B, for example, or is B revolving around A? That question can only be answered by the observer, because only the Self is constant.

Moving on.

While it is rightly stated that the universe does not expand into anything, it should, for clarity and veracity’s sake, be stated that, this being the case, the universe does not actually expand at all. Space, and its corollary, time, being non-existent outside of the universe, along with anything else, means that the universe simply exists relative to itself, so to speak…or in other words, non-relatively. Meaning that the universe simply “is what it is”. In actuality, “the universe” is simply a label we give to the sum and substance of Reality. The universe, thus,  is not a thing, so to speak, but an abstraction, and as such it holds no deeper meaning nor significance than as an abstract context for Reality. The expansion of the universe then is simply a way of describing a particular form of relative movement between certain objects man observes in his environment.

*

“It is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that actually changes in scale.”

Spacetime is an interesting concept, or phenomenon, you could say, I suppose, as it is presented to us by science. It is referred to in physics as being a “coordinate system”. But here in the Wikipedia article we see an implied distinction between the coordinate system, or the metric tensor, and spacetime.

So which is it? Is spacetime a coordinate system, or is the coordinate system distinct? Well, due to the intrinsic rational inconsistencies with the scientific conceptual perspective of spacetime, and being familiar with science’s penchant for excusing these inconsistencies by appealing to contradiction and then pretending that the contradiction is understood and appreciated by the “enlightened” few—that is, the mathematically and scientifically gifted, who today, ironically, comprise our postmodern priest class—I would say that  science most likely considers it both and neither.

Not that it matters to us really, for it is clear to the rational observer, who resists the scientific community’s determination to exceed the scope of its mathematical boundaries, that spacetime is purely a conceptual placeholder. That is, neither space nor time actually exist. The abstractions of “space” and “time” may be rendered as a mathematical coordinate system, but these are not object or empirical themselves—spacetime is not a thing to either be a coordinate system or revealed as or translated into a coordinate system. It is instead a product of man’s conceptualizing powers—a means by which man cognitively organizes certain objects in his environment.

Space is not a thing itself, it is by definition and by rational necessity the absence of things; you cannot have holes in space (e.g “worm holes”), for space is the hole. And objects do not exist in space…they simply exist. The whole point of space, the vacuum, is that it is not. And objects cannot exist in that which does not exist. And time, being a continuum, is likewise a conceptual abstraction—a product of man’s mind; a product of the conscious observer. Time is and must necessarily be a continuum, for time can have no beginning or end, it is the beginning and the end. Time can have no future or past or present, it is the future, past, and present. Time, in other words, is an infinitely linear conceptual construct which is divided into mutually exclusive units of past, present, and future, which are qualified and quantified for practical application. Spacetime, then, at its fundamental root is the abstract conceptual environment in which all empirical/material objects are said to exist at the irreducible physical level. Nothing more. The metric tensor, or the coordinate system, which physics declares the corollary existential, even ontic I would argue, manifestation of spacetime, is simply another abstract quantification of it.

Naturally science disagrees with this…the metric is no mere abstraction, you see, but a god of sorts. It has causality, and its causality is authoritative; and being mathematical and thus predictable, is determinative; and being determinative is absolute—omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Do not take the assertion that the metric “governs” the size and geometry of spacetime as some unimportant thing, its deeper implications to be glossed over as unimportant or pat. The metric governs—it commands, it controls. It acts and the universe inexorably follows suit. It declares what is to be done and the universe obeys. The universe does not itself expand, and objects and spacetime do not move, and yet the metric changes in scale, and so it does and so they do. They do not, and yet through the mysterious omnipotence of the math, they do. The contradiction, though a contradiction, is nevertheless true, and is a testament to the power of god. He who has ears, let him hear. The power of god is wiser than man…man cannot comprehend it. For man’s reason has no frame of reference, no means of apprehending or processing an IS which is simultaneously and IS NOT. Man, the priests of science declare, must accept such truths on faith alone. Math is god; and he doesn’t need your acceding or your concession to validate his truth.

The universe is merely an extension of god, who created all things ex nihilo…from nothing. And god is the metric tensor; the math. The math is infinite…changing into itself; expanding into its own infinity. So the numbers change, but they don’t, because the numbers go on forever. There is no beginning nor end; the difference in the scale of the metric is the difference in degrees of infinity, which of course is no difference at all. The universe expands, but it doesn’t; objects in space move, but they don’t. The universe, objects, spacetime…they all exist, but they don’t. But how is this possible? Because the god of science declares it so.

The intellectual disagreements between religion science, it seems, boil down to little more than debates about whose god can beat up the other.

END

Why Motion is Not Actual, and the Indispensibility of the Singular Conscious Frame of Reference to Reality

As an aid to this article, here is the breakdown of the metaphysical premises of my philosophy, which I call Objective Relativism:

ABILITY (the metaphysical primary) (implies…)

ACTION (implies…)

RELATIVITY (implies…)

REFERENCE (or CONSTANT) (implies…)

SELF (or I) (implies…)

CONCEPTUALIZATION (or SELF-AWARENESS, or DISTINCTION BETWEEN SELF AND NOT-SELF) (implies…)

LANGUAGE (implies…)

COMMUNICATION (implies…)

OTHER (or OTHER SELF)

Summary: ABILITY (metaphysical primary), ACTION, RELATIVITY, REERENCE/CONSTANT, SELF, CONCEPTUALIZATION, LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION, OTHER

*

There’s a little ball…let’s say a cue ball on a pool table. It’s there, just sitting still. And I ask myself, ‘How exactly can this ball move?’ Which is an odd question. Maybe even a silly one. That is, until I clarify…because what I mean is not how does it move, but how can it. Now, I get the basics of Newton’s laws of motion…that’s not exactly what I’m asking here. My question is not a mechanical or mathematical one, but a philosophical one. I don’t care about the mechanisms behind movement so much as I care about the rational (or irrational) assumptions we must make about movement qua movement before those mechanisms can be in any way relevant or meaningful, and thus real.

What I’m asking is this: how exactly does an object, like a cue ball on a pool table, go from no movement to movement (some degree of). How are two ostensibly mutually exclusive states of being integrated in a singular reality?  How does the ball transition from NOT MOVEMENT to MOVEMENT? From an “is” to an “is not”? From a 0 to a 1?

Well, I think we need to appeal to relativity. We’ll say that movement is actually relative movement. Which means that there is no movement qua movement at all, but merely a relative existential definition given to an object by a constant…which I submit must be the Observer, because nothing else can actually provide any relevant and meaningful definition to “movement”.

But of course necessitating consciousness to reality seems extremely subjective to many, if not most, people. They are very uncomfortable with this idea because it makes consciousness (via the Consicous Observer) utterly fundamental to reality and therefore Truth, and they view consciousness as being entirely subjective (it actually isn’t, however…it’s actually the only thing which can be truly objective, but that’s another article). So they look to other explanations for the cause of movement. I believe that this is this is not actually possible, however, because unless we concede the relativity of movement, and thus the need for a consciousness reference in order that the reference not be just another relative object, then we must appeal to mathematics/science to explain movement. But math and science do not really explain how mutually exclusive absolutes, like 1 and 0, Movement and No Movement, Is and Is Not, can integrate and co-exist in the same reality so much as they simply accept and assert them as ipso facto and a priori. And by the way, this is why we need philosophy…because only metaphysics can unravel the inevitable rational paradoxes and contradictions that science and mathematics contrive as existential fundamentals.

So what we get when we try to interpret movement mathematically is the construct of movement as continuum, or s spectrum, and movement is thus said to manifest as a measure of degrees—units of movement—with zero movement being one end and infinite movement (movement beyond practical or possible measure) on the other. But the problem here is how to determine and measure the values between degrees. Presumably, and indeed mathematically, the difference between degrees is measured and manifest in more degrees, and the distinction between these degrees measured and manifest in even more degrees, and so on and so forth, until we eventually concede that the continuum is a continuum of infinite degrees, which makes any given degree of movement fundamentally infinite. And this means that the mathematical valuation of a degree of movement must be purely abstract, purely conceptual—that is, a contrivance of the observer for his own use, and not an actual iteration of some kind of “objective reality” outside of him. Not to mention that by definition zero and infinity cannot be ends of a continuum since they are absolutes, with zero being the absolute—-which means immeasurable—absence of a thing, and infinity being the absolute, immeasurable, presence of a thing. They are mutually exclusive, not “components” of a “shared singularity” called a continuum.

Thus, the whole continuum thing falls apart as a description of what is actually, objectively, being exhibited in reality when a cue ball goes from no movement to (some degree of) movement.

*

It is my assertion that the only possible explanation for how movement as an objective manifestation of reality and existence is possible is to conclude that movement doesn’t actually exist, as such. The cue ball doesn’t really move or not move, rather it simply exists relative to other things, with an observer conceptually describing its existence as (among other ways…that is, among other concepts) “moving” or “not moving” or having some “degree of movement” relative to other objects and referenced to his own constant of Self—that is, his own absolute and singular consciousness.

*

Absent an observer there is no way to claim that objects ever actually or objectively move at all, since in an infinite vacuum, like the Universe, all movement must be relative, which means subjective and nonactual. One cannot answer the question “Does object A move relative to B or is it the other way around?” in an observer-less vacuum because in such a context the only possible answer is, “Both and neither”. Which of course isn’t an answer at all. And you can speak all day of multiverses or an expanding/contracting finite universe, but these are not rational descriptions of the universe’s existence…they are attempts at integrating existence into the mathematical data, which is like attempting to integrate the real world into a computer facsimile. It’s not an answer, it’s a contrivance to get around the metaphysical Truth which science and math cannot describe.

Multiverses, if they are compatible or integrative with each other, must occupy a broader singular reality, meaning a broader singular Universe. A Universe of universes, which is itself a vacuum of purely relative objects.

Yet if they are not compatible or integrative but are mutually exclusive from each other then no one in a given univserse can possibly make any rational claims about the others, even that they exist at all. Because they wouldn’t have an existential frame of reference to make such claims. Other universes would not share reality or existence, and thus they wouldn’t be real or exist to each other in the first place. The multiverse becomes simply a mathematical theory, or a cute fantasy of scientists and mathematicians attempting to co-opt metaphysics, which is a subject, in general and in my experience, far beyond their talents and experience.

Asserting that our own universe is somehow finite begs the question: What is beyond it then?

If the answer is “nothing” then the universe can’t be finite because “nothing” is not, by definition, something which thus can serve as a demarcation between “our universe” and “outside our universe”. So if there is nothing at the edge of our universe, then our universe doesn’t have an edge. The only thing at the edge of our universe is our universe. Which means it is absolute, and singular. Which means it’s infinite.

But if the answer is “something else”  and that something else exists alongside our own universe in a shared reality then clearly our universe isn’t the Universe, but there is a greater universe which comprises both our universe and whatever is outside of it but in the same realty. But if that something is in a different reality then we couldn’t claim it’s real in the first place, because we’d have no frame of reference for a separate reality beyond our own. Which means we couldn’t make any claims about it, least of all that it exists at the edge of our own universe.

No, no matter how we try to explain away or equivocate, we are forced to admit that the universe is singular, it is infinite, it is a vacuum, and thus all which exists in it does so only relatively to each other. And thus, any movement is relative, and thus non-actual, and requires a conscious constant—a conscious reference—to conceptualize “movement”. Movement, and all of reality itself, requires an observer.

END