Tag Archives: consciousness

Evolution is Only a Product of Man’s Mind; it is Neither Causal nor Creative

Uncategorized, ,

Let us think of evolution in its scientifically accepted terms, where evolution is an objective ontological force which causes and creates, governs and guides objects hither and thither along their existential timelines. Let us think of evolution as an actual thing—objective, distinct, and wholly outside of man’s consciousness. Let us imagine that it possesses its own unique essence. Let us imagine that evolution is not a product of human consciousness but the other way around.

And let us never mind that defining a “process” (or “force”, such as gravity) as being distinct, objective, and possessing its own essence is fraught with rational errors…because a process qua process, like a force qua force, can never be directly observed. Which means that empirically it possesses no existential distinction—it is made manifest only via something else. It possesses no independent ontological value…no meaning or relevance on its own, removed from the objects it is said to guide and govern. Which makes it merely a relative expression of those objects—how object A is observed relative to object B; how object X is observed relative to object.Y, and so on. Which makes its existence purely subjective—subject to the objects it “guides” and “governs”—which means it, itself, does not objectively exist at all.

*

Evolution qua evolution can never be directly observed; its “objective” existence which is “outside of man’s consciousness” can only be validated implicitly, which makes describing it in such terms, or even implying that this is its nature, a very curious approach to say the least. It’s more than a little ironic to claim that evolution objectively exists outside of man’s consciousness whilst evolution’s existential relevance requires man’s conscious ability to create meaning beyond what his senses merely deliver. So yes, let us ignore the rational errors inherent to claims of “objectivity” with regards to evolution. Let us pretend that all of the rational errors made by evolutionary apologists who conflate science with philosophy and vice versa can be waved away with a magic scientistic wand, and that, despite all logical and rational evidence to the contrary, evolution is indeed its own distinct thing.

In this case, then, my argument is that evolution, when considered as something existing beyond the confines of man’s mind—beyond the purely conceptual—is wholly redundant and thus wholly irrelevant, and thus cannot actually exist and, of course, has no actual causal nor creative power.

I will break down my argument in parts.

Forgive me, but I must warn you that this could get a little confusing—-not because you will necessarily have trouble understanding the material, but because of my poor writing. I’m aware that my scatterbrained, disorganized writing style is a problem…I’m just not aware of how to fix it yet. Apologies…to you and to myself. Anyway, here we go:

1. No object can evolve beyond the boundaries of evolution—this is a contradiction. The snake cannot outgrow the confines of its terrarium, so to speak. This means that no matter the degree to which a given object evolves, it’s evolutionary stage (the degree to which it has evolved) is always a manifestation of the law of evolution—the source of the process—which, among other laws, is said to govern reality; and since evolution is immutable and constant, and thus absolute, all manifestations of evolution are full manifestations of evolution—that is, an object in any given stage of evolution is manifesting evolution utterly so.

In other words. from the frame of reference of evolution, the root source of the evolutionary process, and the only objective evolutionary reference—the evolutionary constant—all stages of evolution are absolute expressions of evolution. Following the logic, we see that all objects are thus already fully evolved as far as evolution is concerned. Evolutionary stages then are perfectly redundant, objectively speaking, reflecting evolution back to evolution; so really, the entire evolutionary process is merely evolution circling back onto itself. As far as evolution is concerned, no evolution outside of itself ever objectively occurs, All stages of evolution fundamentally imply the singular immutable source, as they are direct functions of it, and thus all stages of evolution imply the fullness of evolution.

*

To recap: The objective source—the root cause—of all evolutionary stages is evolution, itself, which is the evolutionary constant because it is immutable—that is, it does not itself evolve (because this is a contradiction); and evolutionary stages are only objective when they are referenced to the constant.

Now, are you ready for this?

Given everything above, we can see that all stages of evolution then are at root expressions of non-evolution.

Let that little bit of irony sink in.

Evolutionary stages are objectively referenced to what amounts to the fundamental absence of evolution—which is evolution, itself, because evolution does not evolve. Evolutionary stages then of course can only be purely subjective, never objective.

I hope that makes sense. Evolution, you see, is the singular constant from which all stages of evolution equally proceed, making all stages equal expressions of evolution. This means that from the objective frame of reference of evolution, no object has actually evolved more than any other object; and further it means that evolution hasn’t objectively taken place, because as far as evolution is concerned, all stages are utter expressions of itself; all stages mean simply “evolution”. In other words, there is no distinction between evolution and its expression in a given evolutionary stage. Distinctions between evolutionary stages only exist relatively—between objects which are said to be evolving; and this only when the observer conceptually uncouples the stages from the constant—from evolution. This makes every claim that a given object is actually evolving (or has evolved) purely a subjective claim, not an objective one. Such a claim is always and only relative to something other than the objective constant—evolution. (This “other” is, I submit, the observer.) Thus, there are no objective evolutionary distinctions, only subjective ones.

So, is evolution objectively occurring, then?

Obviously not. If we accept that evolution is a distinct, immutable, governing force of reality itself, then no, there is no such objective thing as evolutionary stages, or an evolutionary process, and therefore no such thing as evolution, period. It is only the observer perceiving and conceptualizing certain unique relative distinctions between objects in the environment he perceives. Evolution only finds any meaning when inside the consciousness of man. It is entirely conceptual.

Wrapping up this section, I refer you to the following summarizing points: That nothing can evolve beyond evolution, itself; evolution, itself, cannot evolve—it is immutable and absolute (it cannot be subject to itself…this is a contradiction of evolution); evolution, itself, is the constant to which any stage of evolution must be referenced if the stage is to be considered objective, because evolution, being immutable, is the only objective reference possible; thus no such objective stages of evolution exist since all of them are equal and categorical expressions of evolution. Evolutionary stages—comprising the evolutionary process—are purely subjective…and further, are entirely conceptual, which means entirely a function of man’s consciousness. In short, if evolution is the non-evolving constant from which proceeds all stages and states of evolution, then all stages and states are equal and full expressions of evolution, making evolutionary distinctions between objects purely relative, and thus purely subjective, and thus no object at any given moment is objectively evolving, making evolution entirely circular, redundant, and self-contradicting. Evolution is either a concept in the observer’s (man’s) mind which he uses to describe and organize his environment and his place in it, or it is nonsense.

Finally, to summarize the entirely of my argument in one relatively simple question: From the frame of reference of evolution, itself, which is the objective non-evolving constant from which evolutionary stages proceed, what stage of any given object’s evolutionary journey expresses evolution more so or less so than any other stage?

The answer to that question is precisely why there is no such thing as evolution…at least, no such thing outside of the conceptual realm of man’s consciousness.

END part One

The Observer and the Observed: Science cannot make the distinction, and thus it is philosophically illegitimate.

Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, Uncategorized, , ,

One of my primary metaphysical axioms is the following: The observer cannot be a direct function of what is observed. A rejection of this axiom implies that the observer and the observed are fundamentally one and the same, in which case there is no such thing as either, since no distinction is possible. Nothing is observed, therefore no knowledge is acquired, therefore nothing can be said to exist, either the observer or the observed.

The reason for this axiom stems from my observation that the science, the scientific method, and scientific determinist claims about the nature of reality, all being iterations of empirical, materialist ideas when discussed in philosophical terms (which they should never be, as science is NOT philosophy….meaning that it is decidedly NOT a meta-analysis of reality and existence, and does not possess the tools be such), all presume—that is, prima facia—that such a distinction between the observer and what he observes simply does not exist. The observer is his body, his senses, his brain, and these are all material objects existing empirically and thus whatever scientific knowledge is acquired about those things which the body, brain, and senses observe about reality must also apply to the observer.

This of course is a clear—or at least, it should be clear—contradiction, and only by engaging in the cognitive dissonance ironically seen in mysticism, can science make such an assertion. If the observer is, at his most basic level, just a function of the same materials and forces which comprise what he observes, then there is of course no distinction possible by which the observer may know and understand what he IS versus what he IS NOT, which of course is a clear and obvious prerequisite to actually observing anything in the first place. The materialist assumptions of science when it is asserted as a philosophical discursion render scientific philosophies entirely self-defeating, and thus, to insist that science has anything to say regarding the nature and purpose of reality, is to insist that the “truth” is purely mystical, which means, irrational. As a philosophy, science, the scientific method, and scientific determinism should be rejected out of hand. The very fact that science roots itself it the ability of a scientist to actually observe natural objects and phenomena makes all assertions of scientific determinism/materialism/naturalism with respect to the nature of the observer himself an exercise in irony so profound as to make it perfectly ridiculous.

*

The predictable “scientific” defense appeals to an illusory consciousness, which is simply another way of describing the inability of science to make a meaningful distinction between the observer and what he observes. This begs the question: If consciousness is an illusion, then an illusion of what, exactly?

You see, the claim of “the illusion of consciousness” really means that consciousness—meaning the conscious frame of reference which is ipso facto necessary in order that any actual observation can occur at all—is in its fundamental nature entirely anathema to existence. In other words, the “illusory consciousness” is just the baseless idea that not only does consciousness not exist, it is completely antithetical to existence and reality at root. That consciousness is necessary to make such a claim in the first place—because someone must be in a position to know, and thus to be aware, and thus to be conscious of the fact, in order that they may communicate it—is seemingly never considered. Truly, when scientists stray into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy on the whole, the limitations of their intellect, or the the lengths to which they will go to ignore it, become obvious and quite startling.

Another claim made in service to the idea that science and its philosophical iterations can make a distinction between the observer and the observed is that space is the distinction. In other words, the space which separates the senses, and thus the brain and body, serves as the distinction between what is observed and the one doing the observing. However, this does not work either, because space, if we look at it fundamentally, removed from it abstract mathematical renderings (abstract mathematical renderings which ironically necessitate consciousness…that is, a distinct, independent, conscious observer) is not actually anything at all. Space, in other words, is not something which exists, it is, in its nature, quite the opposite…it is the absence of existence. Space is void…it is null. It, by definition, is not there. This fact is why I have for years found the concept of “wormholes” amusing and entirely fantastical, at least when described as “holes in space”. My response has been to question just how you can have a hole in space when space, itself, is the hole. For example, how can you have a hole in the hole of a doughnut? How can you have a hole in the hole? How can space occupy space? It’s nonsense on its face.

So, no, space does not suffice to serve as the distinction between the observer and the observed because space IS NOT. Space does not exist in the first place to serve as a distinction or anything else, because space, independently, is meaningless, purposeless, and categorically null.

And here’s the hard part. Unfortunately for all of the empiricists, objectivists, scientific determinists, naturalists, etc., and despite all of the (false claims) of my appealing to the mysticism of Primacy of Consciousness, we are at some point simply going to have to accept the fact that all distinctions between objects, including the brain, body, and senses of the observer and that which he observes, are entirely conceptual. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, but there is simply no rational, logically consistent way around it. Consciousness is categorically necessary to realty and existence at the most fundamental level. Period. Full stop. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can start to talk real philosophy, and, somewhat ironically, real science for a change.

The “Consciousness is an Illusion” Fallacy

Uncategorized, ,

When it is said that X is an illusion, it is meant that what is perceived as X is really Y. Once the false perception is corrected, we can understand the difference: what we are actually perceiving is different from what we thought we were perceiving.

The correction of the false perception reveals that the perception of X as Y cannot be categorical. Meaning that X cannot always by everyone be perceived as Y, because if everyone always perceives X as Y, then it cannot be known that there is in fact a difference; and thus it cannot be known that X is an illusion. As far as anyone can ever know or say, X is simply X

This is precisely the problem we run into when we posit that consciousness is an illusion. To say that what we perceive as consciousness (the awareness of a singular metaphysical Self) is in reality something else implies that a difference can be known—that the false perception can be corrected. However, since consciousness is a frame of reference for perception, itself, it can never be perceived that consciousness is something else. It can never be perceived that “I” am actually “not I” because the perception of such a distinction requires the frame of reference of “I” in the first place. Put another way, the frame of reference of he who makes the distinction between the illusion and what the illusion actually is cannot itself be the illusion.

A distinction between the “illusion of consciousness” and what consciousness “actually is” is something which no one, anywhere, at any time, can perceive. Thus, any claim regarding such a distinction is necessarily false. Further, I would add that since consciousness necessarily implies choice and will, any claims as to the illusory nature of these things must also be false. Much more could be said of choice and will, of course, but we will leave it for now.

Physical Law Must Be a Product of Consciousness

Uncategorized,

I posit this:

Physical law is a cognitive organizational construct; it is conceptual in the purest abstract sense of the word. It possesses no material characteristics; it cannot directly interact with material, empirical reality, but only indirectly as a means by which man conceptually organizes his environment. It therefore has no determinative power to exercise over material, empirical reality.

The assertion that physical law exists outside of the human mind, and possesses utterly non-abstract existent properties, and is thus discovered and observed, and is in essence something empirical, and is of the environment, not of the mind, presents with a number of rationally irreconcilable propositions. Here are just a few:

The determinism.

If physical law determines the actions (and reactions) of objects, what then determines physical law? Physical law is the determinative force. Whatever action it takes in order to effect the inevitable determined object outcome must take place. But if we say that the actions of physical law are not themselves determined then we are saying that those actions do not not necessarily need to take place. Therefore, the object outcome which physical law governs likewise does not necessary need to take place, and thus is not necessarily inevitable, and thus is not necessarily determined. A determinative force, like physical law, would require a determinative force to govern its actions…and so on and so forth…a perpetual regression. Therefore, physical law cannot be determinative, and therefore is not law.

The distinction.

That physical law governs objects presumes a distinction between physical law and those objects. If this is the case, then can we not say that it is the properties of the objects themselves which dictate their behavior and not physical law? But if we argue that these properties are themselves a function of physical law, how can it be said that there is an actual distinction between physical law and the objects it governs? There could be no distinction. Without a distinction there can be nothing for physical law to govern and therefore physical law is not actually law.

The observer.

If the observer is a direct function of physical law then how can he observe it from a distinct frame of reference…a reference which is required in order that observation can actually occur? If there is no such frame of reference, and thus no observation, and thus no observer, then who or what defines physical law as being, in fact, physical law? If there exists no one to declare a thing a thing then to whom or what is that thing relevant? There is no one and nothing. Without relevancy there is no purpose, and if there is no purpose there is no meaning, and without meaning there is no definition, and without definition nothing can be said to exist. If what exists cannot be defined, how can it be said to exist? “What exists?” is a question with no possible answer.

Physical law taken beyond man’s mind is a rational disaster.

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

General Philosophy, Identity, individualism vs collectivism, Man's Ability, Metaphysics, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, , , , , , , , ,

“…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.”

I understand how abstruse and arcane this quote is, taken from part two of this series, so I decided to dedicated part three to clarifying the point made, and also insofar as this point necessarily relates to death. Also, in reading back this quote I was able to anticipate possible objections and concerns as a function of the overt complexity of the argument; those will likewise be addressed.

To begin with, let’s look at this analogy. The car you drive (if you have a car, that is…if not, well, you’ll still follow) did not always exist as the car, per se. Prior to being your car it was merely a collection of parts, and before that, piles of metal and glass and plastic and paint; and before that, raw minerals which were mined from the ground, or chemicals mixed and refined in some industrial laboratory. After a few years, the car is disposed of, and will then decompose and break down, back into its multiple parts. But these parts, prior to and after the existence of the car, per se, continue to exist. They do not return to oblivion in the same way that they do not spring from it. After all, we know that according to the law of conservation of mass that matter cannot be created and destroyed; and philosophically this is form of the logic of non-contradiction. Meaning that the reason matter cannot be fundamentally created or destroyed is because a thing which exists cannot spring from non-existence, and it cannot become non-existent. Its existence IS; it is axiomatic, it is a-priori; it is de facto.

Likewise, one might say that while a human being did not exist as such prior to birth, there did exist a collection of parts—hormones and fertilizer and eggs and sperm cells and enzymes and proteins, DNA…you get the idea—which eventually came together to form the human being—let’s say you, in the interest  of casualness—that we recognize as a specific individual person. Following death, you shall desololve and decompose back into the many parts which formed you. All of these parts existed prior to you, and they all will exist after you. You are the parts, and the parts are you, and the parts remain in some for as a-priori existing; they are absolute; eternal.

Here is the problem with this explanation, and I’m sure you’ve probably already discerned it. The car, coming from a collection of parts, does not have a sense of Self. It possesses no singular consciousness…it does not recognized, or rather, it does not observe and interpret its environment, and all of reality itself, from a singular, specific, constant frame of reference. The car, in other words, does not know it’s a car. The collection of parts which make up the car do not suddenly, once in “true” car form, begin to associate as a single entity, able to conceptualize itself as a single object, and likewise its environment and all things in it. The parts of the car do not suddenly reject instinctually and naturally their distinct existence and begin to call themselves “I”, “Myself”, “Me”.

Do you see what I am getting at here? The difference between a car and a human being is that human beings DO possess a singular consciousness; a single observational and conceptulaizing frame of reference which demands and necessitates that the parts are not in fact fundamental, but merely form one’s body. Yet one’s SELF—that by which those parts paradoxically utter the words “I”, “Myself”, “Me”, and “Mine”—is the true nature and essence of human existence. To deny this is to relegate consciousness to some inexplicable epiphenomenon, or infinite mystery, or an illusion, or some random blip of mathematical uncertainty…and yet none of these claims can possibly be true because Truth itself necessitates that they be entirely false.

And it is this Self—this singularity—which I mean when I say that the human being is said to begin at birth and end at death. Of course the parts of “you” live on…and of course “you” were born of parts. I am not obtuse or blind to this obvious and pedestrian fact. But the real YOU, your SELF…your agency, awareness, will, consciousness…is NOT of parts, because there is no One from many parts; no I from Not I; no Self Awareness from infinite unconsciousness. And absolute consciousness does not “return” or dissolve into absolute unconsciousness; what IS does not become object oblivion. The law of the conservation of matter must also infer a law of conservation of consciousness (Self Awareness; which is the ability to conceptualize Self and Other) unless we are prepared to claim that consciousness is a lie or an illusion…a claim is very easily debunked and dismissed as the very mysticism and irrationality that those who peddle it claim to oppose.

And this is why I utterly reject the notions of birth and death. Not because they serve as anthropological and biological concepts to describe the cosmically and mathematically prescribed evolution of a human bing, but because they are a deception, and their fundamental meanings are completely spurious at best. Birth and death can only apply to he who is conscious, and yet they utterly contradict consciousness because they render it transitory, coming from oblivion and returning to oblivion, and thus render consciousness a moot and worthless concept. Which renders birth and death themselves moot and worthless. And yet if consciousness IS, and is ACTUAL, it must be absolute and constant, and thus likewise birth and death are rendered moot and worthless. In either and all cases, birth and death are fundamentally meaningless. They may serve as convenient contextual and subjective descriptions of a person’s existence, but they are not absolute, and are not objective, and have no actual bearing on the root nature of human existence. Birth and death are irrelevant with respect to parts. The parts, being absolute and perpetual, according to the law of conservation of matter, are not ultimately born, and do not die, and thus if man is like a car, made up of perpetually existing parts in some form or another, then he does not die and he is not born any more than a car is born or dies, except in the purely figurative sense.

But man is said to be born and then to die; and any way you try to rationalize this claim, it fails. And it fails for one simple reason. Man, unlike his car, knows himself.

END

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

Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, , , , , , ,

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 non–actual. 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

Aphorism of the Day: Consciousness is real

Epistemology,

An illusion is a false image of reality. Thus, there can be no illusions without first that which is real. Therefore human consciousness cannot be simply the vehicle for illusions of reality, but must be the vehicle by which man can ACTUALLY know what is real (true) from what is ACTUALLY an illusion of reality (false). Otherwise, there could be no consciousness at all. For you cannot be aware of an illusion of an illusion; where consciousness is an illusion and thus so is reality, by extension.