Universe and Time

Well as you said, yes, but tautological.

Yes, “being” merely means “existing” which means “affecting”.

There was no “first in time”. There is a “first in principle” or “most fundamental” or “Primary Principle” or “Eternal Situation”, all of which are called “First Cause”, which is a “Situation of Affects”, which is a “Potential-to-Affect”. Time itself can have no beginning. It is impossible that the universe ever began. The universe has always been and must always be because the cause of it is eternal and must always be.

In more detail, the “unmoved mover” is the logical situation of a “PtA changing at an infinite rate, an infinite number of times, over an infinite distance and thus yielding a finite propagation of affect” (known as the “speed of light”) and is the cause of light. Or Biblically, “God said, Let there be light” or “God spoke and there was light” or “Due to God, there was light”. All of which are technically accurate considering the metaphorical “speaking”. And in a manner of speaking, “Yahweh” is “Affectance”, the “Spirit of God” (the Pathos) formed from the Unmoved Mover (The Logos) of “The Logic of the Situation of an infinitely fast affect having to make an infinite number of changes, an infinite number of times, chaotically spreading”.

“God the Father”, is a logical situation. And the “First Son of God” is the propagation and spreading of light. The abundance of such subtle chaotic affectance, light (“Yahweh”), still in the presence of the Father, demands “stagnation of the chaos” = Order = “Ahdam” = “The Manifestation of God”, known as “Matter” in physics and “Man” in scriptures. Socially, these same principles hold in that every order; particle, kingdom, or empire is formed for that exact same reason. The Bible is merely a different ontology and epistemology for the same reality. The “New World Order” is being formed by that same process.

And subsequently, the original Israel was to be the home of the social Yahweh and the RCC was/is a “Particle” wherein the Father stagnates the affectance/subtle chaos into an order (a “Stone”) while Yahweh permeates the surrounding ambience, “society”. Jesus, the impetus for order could not acquire mass and particlize within the home of Yahweh, for the same reason that a particle of matter cannot amass and remain stable within the extreme dense chaos of a black hole or star. A particle begins in such extreme chaotic and passionate ambience but must leave the region in order to become a stable order of mass. And then remains immutable with its acquired mass (assuming they do it right).

And that is the same reason that a sect of the original Mormon church left New York to go into the wilderness of Utah where it amassed into what is now the LDS, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”.

The error that they make, and have always made, is the effort to form the entire world into a single particle, “Globalization”. Note that the universe is NOT one big particle of matter - For A Reason.

Okay.

Okay.

According to your ontology it has to be, yes. It is nearly unimaginable, isn’t it?

Do you know Heraklit and his concept of „logos“ as the „eternal fire“?

Well, I had to look up that spelling. I know him as Herclitus. And he, like most of the famous, got very many things very close to right. But to date, I have found none that got it all entirely right (closest was Jesus, missing merely a momentum issue that would have circumvented any challenge to it).

Here we would have a litte difference which is similar to the difference we have relating to the nothingness.

Because of that definitions both beginning and ending of the universe are also impossible.

So you still think that nothingness exists???

No, my answer was, is, and will be: maybe.

But okay, that is not relevant here.

So maybe ( ) you can tell a little bit more about “absolute zero” and “infinite homogeneity”.

Then anything is possible, which means that nothing is possible.
Because nothing is possible until something is impossible.

Do you remember that I told you I am also sceptic?

We are talking about your ontology. So let us continue …

Would you mind going into details?

I believe that everyone should have a degree of self-doubt, else they cannot correct their own errors. But to believe that;
“No-thing might be equal to Some-thing”, “Not-A ?= A” is to blatantly doubt the simplest logic.

Without confidence in logic, a mind has no choice but to believe only in its direct perception or in whatever it has been programmed to believe. There is no other escape from mis-perception or programming. That is how human drones are made. Logic is the only freedom from programming. And dealing with drones on the internet takes a whole, whole lot and generally isn’t very pleasant with dubious results.

If nothing might be something, then anything might be nothing. Anything I might say or you might think, might be nothing at all = zero confidence. Thus there isn’t much point in talking about anything that isn’t already believed until programming updates. Logic is meaningless, and RM is ALL about Logic and what can be known because of it. There is no room for doubting if “A is A”.

What makes you think that I doubt the logic? That’s not true!

When someone says to me, he believes in - for example - “nirvana” because it “exists”, then I would probably say “maybe you are right, I don’t know”. That’s all. It doesn’t matter whether believing in “nirvana” is false or true because I don’t know whether it is false or true, and it doesn’t matter as well what I believe in that case. That’s all. That is no doubting the logic!

I am interested in your ontology, James. But I can’t promise in advance that I believe in your ontology because I don’t know it in any detail.

It is the same reason why I have been being interested in your ontology and why you now misunderstand me. I am not saying that “‘no-thing’ is ‘some-thing’”, but I am saying, if we - the human beings - are not able to perceive and understand our world (universe, multiverse, … or whtever), then we shouldn’t always say that we know our world. That’s all what I am saying. If I were saying different stuff then it would be more probable being not interested in your ontology. I am open for philosophising. You too? So I have to be open for rational and irrational stuff like a mathematician because he can merely then work rationally with irrational numbers, if he is open for irrationality.

Do you understand what I mean?

What you are saying about me (indirectly) in your last post is not true.

I merely want to reserve a right. That’s all. It has nothing to do with your ontology.

And I have told you that repeatedly. So you know that. I don’t understand why you are now responding in that way?

We two are pretty similar spirits, James. So why should I “doubt the simplest logic”? If I did, you would do it as well.

My interest in logic began probably when I began to think. Was it still in the uterus? I can’t remember my time in my mother’s uterus, but I know that I began to think very early, to be interested in logic.

I think you both are more on the same page than you realize. One is saying part of the argument while the other is bringing the counter and both become necessary. There should be a balance between doubt and confidence in everything you do to ensure that you are learning as much as possible and continue to push your self to constantly be sure of what is possible and what is not and to keep checking your work in case you were wrong. All of our conversations here are meaningless when you get right down to it as we’re only sharing information that any one of us could acquire and bring out through our subconscious connections to conscious communications.

Realistically, we’ll never prove any bit of this beyond a shadow of a doubt; not the way that many would want us to. It’s like if a person believes in God and they’re talking to someone who doesn’t; they have to try and explain why they believe in God. At some point, proof is asked for that can’t be given and the person has to revise their statement to ‘Well, I can’t say for sure if God exists or not’; if they’re smart; but they still know that God exists, as does every single person even though they may doubt it from time to time.

We will never prove God, because that isn’t how it works. We shouldn’t have to prove God and it shouldn’t be our lifes passion. God proves himself to each of us over time regardless of how many people refuse to acknowledge the seeming coincidental ways he reaches us and the prayers he answers; ignoring those things because they are so easily ignored and unprovable; but everyone still knows.

There are just some things we can reasonably come to know and understand and make use of that people will never be able to prove. Instead of wasting time trying to prove it to others, perhaps you should prove what can be done with it, instead. You have to keep in mind that you’re not just fighting the ideas of other people, but their fear as well; in this case, James’ fear. I think you did a pretty good job.

I know that, but I think that James doesn’t know that.

At least James’ reaction indicates that he doesn’t really know that we are on the same page.

What James is critisising is not important for what we are talking about: his ontology. My skepticism does not refer to logic - James has completely misunderstood that -, but my skepticism refers to something else: to the arrogance of human beings, who believe in omniscience.

The real scientist knows and says that there is no possibility for omniscience, and if it were, it would be no science but religion. Our science is already partly a religion. I have no interest in helping it to become more religious.

Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word “scientist” is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion.

What do you mean with “James’ fear”?

But logic isn’t all there is. He is right, one should have confidence, but there will always be doubt and should always be doubt. It’s not confidence in logic that’s the problem. People feel perfectly comfortable with their logic when they decide to believe what they believe however blindly. Their logic guides them to trust the seemingly better logic of others.

To have logic complete, one must take into account emotion and every other bit of faulty programming to override it, which means there is every point in talking about everything that isn’t already believed because the programming has yet to update. Logic is the only freedom from programming? Logic is part of the programming; so there is still no freedom.

The very argument is based in fear of some sort or another; troubles and emotions stirring that have probably been repressed; whereas you show yours openly even while still being afraid because he’s seemingly arguing against you because his thoughts are slightly off-kilter.

As for Omniscience; I don’t believe the idea to be at all implausible. We only ever know what we need to know when we need to know it, though. The concept of a being with omniscience; a greater consciousness; isn’t so silly. The idea that that idea is silly is based on another idea we have that if we can’t do it, nothing else can; which has gotten more than a few people into some really tight spots.

I meant the omniscience of the people in general.

My skepticism refers to the arrogance of human beings, who believe in omniscience.

Because of the fact that I have told that to James repeatedly, he has known it since then and not since the time of this post.

depends on how well they’re connected.

and

We don’t know what the nothingness exactly is, so we also don’t know whether the nothingness exists or not, but we can think the nothingness, so the thought of nothingness is in our mind, and for that reason we can’t say that we know nothingness doesn’t exist, but we have to say that we don’t know, whether nothingness exists or not.

[b]So we must consider the irrationality and not give up the rationality. Nothing of the rationality, logic. Nothing!

We should do what mathematicians do! [/b]

This is simple guys.

Is nothing something?

It has been proposed that such “maybe be” true.

If that is the case, then the very essence of logic is doubtful, “not-A ?= A”. If one doubts that not-A is NOT-A, then nothing said changes anything. No confidence can be gained from anything. And in a state of no-confidence, rational decisions cannot be made and the person becomes nothing as well (which seems to be the intent driving such thoughts).

RM is solely about finding what it is that one CAN have 100% confidence in. Any fool can doubt all things for all of their short lives.

Is 2+2=4 ??
“Well, I don’t know really. It might, might not. We really don’t know anything for sure.” - [size=85]because “we” are absolute sheepish morons.[/size]

That has nothing to do with what I am (or even we are) talking about, James. We can agree with each other that doubt and doubtlessness can coexist. I don’t have to doubt that nothingness exists or that nothingness does not exist. Terms like “Not-A = A” or “2+2=4” are a lttle bit different from terms like
“nothingness = part of existence (special case)” or “0 = part of the numbers (special case)”.

Nothingness is a special case. One can compare it with the number “0” (it is a part of the realm called “whole numbers” and [either] not [or sometimes even also ] a part of the realm called “natural numbers”). Both “natural numbers” and “whole numbers” belong to the realm called “rational numbers”.

What we were talking about was the definition of “existence”. You proposed that hypothetically “nothingness” might exist. But the very definition of “nothingness” is that it doesn’t exist. To say that nothingness exists, is contrary to its definition. It would be like saying that "maybe blue is a special case of red".

The color black and the quantity zero, both express the non-existence of something; void of color and void of quantity. We give both of those concepts a word or symbol so that we can express the non-existence of the quality of interest.

If you are thinking of perhaps a “region of space wherein there is absolutely nothing”, then it is the region or volume that exists (and has affect because of being a volume). But the “absolute nothing” itself within the region by definition means non-existence.

It is like asking if a “void of air” exists. There can be a region that has a void of air, such as space. The region exists. But the “void of air” itself is the non-existence of air. And non-existence cannot exist merely by the definition of the term. The language itself forbids it.

But as you discover later, even the hypothetical region of non-affect cannot exist.