A Metaphysical Derivation of Life, The Universe & Everything

I. Philosophical Ingredients

Continuity is our first principle.

Continuity is:

  1. unending divisibility (ingress)
  2. unending extensibility (progress)

Continuity is the essence of temporality.

Temporality is the primordial existential mode of Dasein (the being that is always Being-in-the-world).

Temporality is conceptualized by Dasein as time (a unidirectional series of events).

II. The Derivation

In order to construct the universe, we are going to need a universal particle. That is, each of the parts must be essentially the same as the whole. This universal particle is called a Unit-of-Continuity (UoC), and can best be understood as a “period of time”.

Each UoC, as is, is ontologically indistinguishable from any other. That is, it is meaningless to say whether any particular UoC is truly “a part of a whole” or “a whole with parts”.

It must also be understood that a UoC, as such, is not ontologically significant. It is simply a conceptual device that allows us to carry on a derivation of the universe.

Within each UoC, we will count a number of differences. The value that we obtain will be known as: potential (also known as energy value or mass value… there is no conceptual difference between the two).

Each UoC consists of an arbitrary number of constituent UoCs and is also one of an arbitrary number of constituents of a larger UoC. Again, the precise boundaries that define each UoC are merely conceptual devices.

From here on out, for the sake of readability, I will refer to a Unit-of-Continuity as an “atom”.

Now, atoms can be said to be continually interacting with one another. Once again, because there is no “inner reality” to the boundaries of an atom (that is, they are arbitrarily determined), these interactions are not to be understood as “true external relations”.

It is important to recognize here that although an atom is understood essentially as a “period of time”, the general notion of spatiality is already contained within that of temporality. That is, events of relatively small periods of time are implied to have occured within relatively small regions of space.

The interactions that atoms have with each other occur within a 6-level range, and each level has a subjective and an objective sense, respectively denoted by S and O:

  1. Quantum Physics
    S: Absorption
    O: Excitation/Emission

  2. Classical Physics
    S: Sensation
    O: Reaction

  3. Animal Nature
    S: Perception
    O: Action

  4. Pre-Human
    S: Cognition/Recognition
    O: Intention

  5. Early Human
    S: Abstraction
    O: Interpretation

  6. Modern Human
    S: Formulation
    O: Deconstruction

The first level, quantum physics, generally happens when two similarly sized atoms “externally interact” with one another. These atoms are not identifiable, in the classical sense of having distinguishable characteristics that persist through time. This most fundamental level grounds the possibility of all others.

Next, the classical physics level (which includes all “relativity” theories) gives us persistantly identifiable material bodies. The quantum level interactions form a complex that we can generalize as a “neural sensation”, which we can also more vaguely call a “feeling”. It is here where we get the physical picture of anything from billiard balls crashing into each other… all the way to a mechanical concept of a living organism (such as a bacterium). All that is happening here is blind reactivity.

Animals, as we know them, are able to perceive, or to “see” objects within their environment. Although there is not yet any kind of planning, animals are at least able to become instinctually pro-active about what it immediately “sees”. (I use the word see in quotes, because animals are able to perceive things with a wide variety or sensory devices).

In the pre-human stage, we have ape-like creatures who are able to cognize, or recognize, the basic meanings of symbols and signs. It is at this level that we start to understand in animals a kind of intentional behaviour towards things that are removed from them, and are thus “held in memory”.

Early humans were able to construct the first languages, and thereby inquire about the sense of the individual terms contained therein. These primitive languages are able to do such things as passing down historical traditions and instructing others how to learn basic techniques. Memory contains not just “pictures” of individual things, but also the words that put these things into various situations.

Moderns humans are able to construct sophisticated lines of reasoning using concepts of a highly derivative nature. It is here that the desire to know “truth” comes into play. This is the level of the “moral person”.

III. Final Considerations

Even if you don’t completely follow the logic of what I am trying to say here, you should at least be able to sense that I have undertaken a very ambitious project: from a first philosophical principle, I am trying to derive everything other concept that humans can possibly have… from quantum physics (the basic principle of the phenomenal universe) all the way to philosophy itself!

Now, while I feel very happy about the progress that I’ve made over the last decade of philosophical activity, I realize that a philosopher’s value is always limited by his power of description. That is, no matter how brilliant is a philosopher’s intuitions, if he is not an equally brilliant wordsmith, then it all falls on deaf ears.

Because of the advanced philosophical level at which my mind works (yes, I am very proud… so sue me!), I realize that the vast majority of my audience here will just be baffled about what I am trying to say, no matter how simply I construct my arguments. Your confusion might anger you, possibly leading to name calling. If you want to call me names, that’s your perogative. But I’ve been called worse by better, so it is all water off a duck’s back.

For those of you who are already working at a fairly high level (say you’ve already spent a good amount of time on Kant, for instance), I don’t mind answering thoughtful questions about my basic ideas. But even more, I am looking for others to attempt to deconstruct what I am trying to say. To understand what I mean by that, read my introductory post.

nice opening post… welcome to the boards…

-Imp

I agree, good post.

If you have not read them yet, you might find Wilber or Koestler interesting, as your UoC’s are an expounded representation for the term they often lean upon called “holons”.

Also, I would suggest making some room for further levels, considering the principle of continuity intuited, it mustn’t stop at atoms or philosophical understanding.

Furthermore, and if you read Wilber you should “see” this, though your system is seemingly developmentally intact, it lacks some essential detail. I also think your objective correlates at the pre-human, human, and modern human levels need some work. Those (Intention, Interpretation, and Deconstruction) are not objectively witnessed occurrences.

Thanks for the good words :slight_smile:

I had skimmed through some of Wilber’s stuff a few years back, and needless to say, I was far from ready to hear what he had to say. Just recently, I’ve been noticing some similarities in what I’ve been trying to say, and what I vaguely remember about him. I just remember that his style was immensely annoying.

Anyway, since my mind works at such a furious pace, I came up with all that “six level” stuff within the space of a few hours yesterday. I’m well aware that my simple division along the lines of “Subjective” and “Objective” was not very satisfying. Maybe, I should have just said that the one is more or less subjective/objective than the other.

Anyway, I came up with six sentences to put these levels into real-world use:

  1. Quantum: The hydrogen atom absorbed the atom and was left in a state of excitation.

  2. Classical: The soccer ball sensed the boy’s foot and reacted accordingly.

  3. Animal: The bear perceived the salmon as it leapt from the river, and took action by swiping at it.

  4. Pre-Human: The chimpanzee recognized the hand-signal for dinner, and showed intention to eat by setting the dinner table.

  5. Early: Over many generations, the Indian tribe abstracted a spoken language from the symbols of its ancestors, which could only be understood by the Army General through an interpretation into English.

  6. Modern: Aristotle formulated a detatiled metaphysical system which the doctoral candidate deconstructed about 2,500 years later.

So, there is a definite temporal distinction between the two senses (as far as before and after), but that isn’t all that is happening. In the first sense, we are generally getting a notion of “internality” (or, a period of decision making if you will) and in the second, there is a notion of “externality” (or, a result of the decision making).

The major point that I am trying to make, however, is simply that the size of each “atom” (I’ll remove the quotes from now on) increases as we move up the scale, in the simple sense that each event generally takes longer than the previous.

Also, each prior atom is seamlessly embedded within the succeeding one, so that there is a continuum (one of my favorite words) from the first level to the sixth.

I’ve just got through some pretty heavy duty reading of Whitehead’s “process philosophy,” and there is very little that I disagree with him about. However, I do have some issue with his use of the term, “actual entities”.

Since my atoms (Units-of-Continuity) are bound by purely arbitrary (and wholly imaginative) borderlines, I have a serious problem with ever directly calling them “actual”. For me, the concept of “actuality” is all wrapped up in this muddy, six-level mess that I’ve hastily constructed. I’m thinking that actualization is just something that the transcendent subject (i.e. it cannot be directly sensed, but can only be measured/quantized indirectly in terms of pure, fungible energy potential) does within itself. In other words, I’m thinking of “self-actualization”, in terms of something that belongs way up there in the sixth level (modern man).

Maybe it is only through the philosophical process of formulation/deconstruction that humans are able to truly “understand” themselves, and thus become fully “actualized”.

Another thing about those six levels… some people might object to my attempt to so crudely categorize things, and thus keep them completely apart from one another. If you do object so, you are completely misreading my intention. You see, I purposely wanted to construct something that was “fuzzy” and that allowed there to be crossovers from one level to the next. (After all, who says that a bear can’t cognize like a chimp can?) In fact, I would like there to be more levels and not less. In fact, the whole point is to show that the levels themselves are as arbitrary as any kind of border that you can possibly construct, and that this is all a continuum, infinitely rich with potential!

one simple question…

what guarantees that the future will behave as the past did?

-Imp

I’m trying to understand the significance of your question… can you help me out a little more?

Your question seems a little too “scientific” for where I’m coming from…

Also, I’m not arguing for any kind of transcendent “final causation”/teleology here…

I just skimmed over the holon concept, and it is definitely pretty amateurish stuff, in the sense that it is grounded in a purely atemporal (Platonic) ontology. It speaks about “forms” of holons, and thus leaves the whole form vs. matter distinction unasked. The resolution of this distinction is precisely what Whitehead set out to do with his elegant considerations of potentiality vs. actuality (which, according to Rorty, was a complete inversion of Aristotle’s notions of these two ideas).

you start with a supposition:

unending extensibility?

what guarantees that the future will behave as the past did?

-Imp

Thanks for the clarification…

First of all, continuity has nothing directly to do with past, present, future. This things are “derivations,” for want of a better term. We can quibble about the significations of these things later.

The notion of “infinite extensiveness” is simply contained within the idea of continuity. For, if continuity wasn’t like this, then it would end and therefore it would be discontinuous. This is all pretty tautologous.

Crap. Here is was going along, so proud of myself with all that I’ve accomplished within the past few days.

Then I go on a major brainstorm today (fueled by a major Panera all-you-can-drink coffee bender) – and can you guess what happened?

That’s right…

I fell right into Kant’s goddam lap.

Now, I’ve always known that Kant has his i’s dotted and his t’s crossed, and I’d even been inspired by some of his particular concepts. But all the sudden, it was like the full weight of CPR came crashing down on me like a ton of bricks.

I’m pretty sure I’ve read most of it, but now I feel like locking myself up in a vault with that thing for a decade, and feeding myself with the energy of its radiant brilliance.

Granted, there are a few things that I’ve been able to extend upon, given that Kant did not have the priviledge of witnessing the electromagnetic theories of the 19th century and the quantum theories of the 20th century. But these are just matters of “icing on the cake,” when it comes right down to it.

And while I do think that my “atomic theory” and six-level construction are fairly interesting, if not downright revealing, I’m not too sure how helpful it is for someone who just wants to be a real philosophical badass.

truth is based on a tautology? circles are nice but they are not philosophical Truths…

if a tautology was all that was needed, anselm’s proof of god would have been the definitive truth

-Imp

p.s. kant never solved hume’s problems…

So…

Where “X = continuity” is a tautology.

Would you not agree that “uninterrupted succession” is the same as “unending extensiveness”?

So, if by definition, the idea of “unending extensiveness” is contained within the word “continuity”, then the statement:

Is true!

…good stuff.

III. Final Considerations

Even if you don’t completely follow the logic of what I am trying to say here, you should at least be able to sense that I have undertaken a very ambitious project: from a first philosophical principle, I am trying to derive everything other concept that humans can possibly have… from quantum physics (the basic principle of the phenomenal universe) all the way to philosophy itself!

Now, while I feel very happy about the progress that I’ve made over the last decade of philosophical activity, I realize that a philosopher’s value is always limited by his power of description. That is, no matter how brilliant is a philosopher’s intuitions, if he is not an equally brilliant wordsmith, then it all falls on deaf ears.

Because of the advanced philosophical level at which my mind works (yes, I am very proud… so sue me!), I realize that the vast majority of my audience here will just be baffled about what I am trying to say, no matter how simply I construct my arguments. Your confusion might anger you, possibly leading to name calling. If you want to call me names, that’s your prerogative (okay!). But I’ve been called worse by better, so it is all water off a duck’s back.

For those of you who are already working at a fairly high level (say you’ve already spent a good amount of time on Kant, for instance), I don’t mind answering thoughtful questions about my basic ideas. But even more, I am looking for others to attempt to deconstruct what I am trying to say. To understand what I mean by that, read my introductory post.
[/quote]
Oh mister! Mister! I do not understand! Please help me! I operate on a low level! I am baffled! Your superior intellect and philosophical ken shoots past my pedestrian intelligence! I feel anger because I do not understand, not because you are a condescending pooface! (My prerogative!)
Hahaha. Pooface.
You give philosophers everywhere a bad name.