Monopantheism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Monopantheism can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not). The only work of people that I have seen that ever went at length to actually prove monopantheism was Spinoza’s Ethics and Christopher Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. Spinoza seems to focus on determinism… and Langan seems to focus on teleology. It takes 10 propositions for Spinoza to prove his case on God’s existence based on axioms. With Langan however he seeks more to bring you up to speed as fast as you can to his immense intellect of knowledge and connecting it all together into the proof. The advantage of Spinoza’s work is that it is geometrically concise and the advantage of Langan’s work is that he uses no axioms but instead makes the entire proof founded on logical tautologies!

So, here is my proof that is both geometrically concise (even more so than Spinoza’s) and also entirely founded on logical tautologies (even more so than Langan’s).

mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoz … front.html
ctmu.net/
mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritua … etric.html

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing involves nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
b(A = x)[/b] “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence

(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]

Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
(A ≡ A)∧(idA: A → A) [intentional]

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

(T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

(T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
(A → A)∧(idA: A → A) [pantheism]

(T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
(A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [omnipotent]

(T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect, omnipresent]

Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

(D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [monism]
Proof–The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that–No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

Theory of Monism Panpsychism
2

This seems a development of your thread in philo. Why does it warrant a separate thread?

3

I’m not sure if I even understand this one. This guy should be contributing in the logic 101 thread. Not about this particular post, but it looks from it as though he might have something to contribute. That’s complicated stuff man!

4

Flaw nr.1

“All things are involved” involved, in the way you are using it, does not necissarily mean “causal”.

If human → Mammal

humans are not the cause of mammals… but it is a necissary condition of the term “human” (we ARE mammals)

Flaw nr.2

It should read “all things are descriptive”

Flaw nr.3

“All things are existence” not just “something”

Flaw nr.4

Not sure if this is a flaw… but I’d better point it out “something is the cause of all things” does not necissarily imply that it is the same “thing” for all things…

By taking causation for granted you have basically managed to say that “nothing” does not exist. That all things are “something”, and that all things have a cause that is also a thing itself… Existence being the thing under which all things are something. So now you know that everything exists. and that therefor existence is everywhere and eternal… and you added that it’s also perfect.

You went through allot of truble to prove this trivial notion… although I suspect that most of your effort went into sneaking in all the non-sequiturs to imply a god like singularity rather than “existence” which is what you are really talking about.

[-X

5

This is on religion and proving the foundations of religion. The other is about foundations of reality in general… and does not contain any religious deductions.

6

Humans are involved in what it means to be a mammal. Implication is not of existence which is what you are implying with “we ARE mammals”… that is NOT what implication means!

Nothing is uninvolved means that there is no thing that does not have participatory relations with other things… That necessitates casual relations in all things!

That is a correct corollary. However, some things are self-descriptive (Humans for example). In endomorphism there can be one thing that is all descriptive of itself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism

“All things HAVE existence” could be a correct corollary. To say that all things in themselves are existence is to say they have necessary existence which is absurd (otherwise they cannot be created nor destroyed). But what you mean of “All things” ARE existence is forced to be interpreted as a one thing. But I hold off from saying one thing until the deduction.

This is true, “something is the cause of all things” does not necessarily imply that it is the same thing for all things… and this is exactly how I use this logical tautology in the deduction! Only after the deduction does one realize that all things are necessarily caused by one thing. That does NOT mean that individual things cannot be said to have causal relations with each other.

I have taken nothing for granted. Pardon the pun. lol But I have actually proven it!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

7

That’s essentially his whole argument. The ‘tautologies’ he’s listed that are not incorrect are just a description of existence, and then he tries to slip in meaning. He thinks he’s proven something profound with simple word games.

8

actually all this “nothing” crap is descriptive of non-existence… not descriptive of existence… and he’s trying to dig out descriptions of existence from them… which is an utter non-sequitur.

Hell… I can play language games too!

check it out!

  1. All things that are not cars are something else.
  2. All things that are something, exist.
  3. A unicorn is not a car.
  4. A unicorn is something else. (from 1, 3)
  5. Therefor a unicorn exists. (from 2, 4)

There… proof that unicorns exist! :stuck_out_tongue:

9

Nope… it just means that everything has a relationship with SOMETHING… it could very well be itself.

Now you’re just making assertions… none of this follows from your “tautology”.

erm… All things are existence in the sense that all P is Q… that dosn’t mean all Q is P…

But we might very well define existence as all future, past and present things… that’s really all it is.

:unamused:

you really didn’t…

“Nothing causes nothing” is not “proof” of a damn thing…

Tautology is another word for “true by definition”… it’s never proof of anything… nothing deduced from it is proof of anything… it’s pure language…

10

Do you mean quantum self-interaction? Like I said, self-interaction is fine with me.

Actually, it does follow from Identity Morphism. Feel free to look it up. Category Theory has some very interesting properties added to Set Theory.

Do you mean “are” as “exists as”? Such that “All things exist as existence”? That is obviously absurd as that would necessitate all things in and of themselves having necessary existence… that they cannot be created nor destroyed. Consider that when being explicit with what you mean by “are” and “is” your idea disappears… as it is based on your not understanding the language you use.

You are simply mistaken.

A proof is “A rigorous mathematical argument which unequivocally demonstrates the truth of a given proposition.”

mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html

And logical tautology “is formula in propositional calculus which is always true.”

mathworld.wolfram.com/Tautology.html

11

Not “nothing” is descriptive of not “non-existence”.

A ≡ A → ¬A ≡ ¬A … etc

12

“According to the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman (Feynman 1997), mathematicians designate any theorem as “trivial” once a proof has been obtained–no matter how difficult the theorem was to prove in the first place. There are therefore exactly two types of true mathematical propositions: trivial ones, and those which have not yet been proven.”

mathworld.wolfram.com/Trivial.html

I would like to point out though that proving that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality is hardly trivial from a philosophic perspective.

It is rather profound that I have proven through seven tautological propositional formula consciousness and it’s nature;

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing involves nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
b(A = x)[/b] “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence

(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]

Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
(A ≡ A)∧(idA: A → A) [intentional]

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

The only person that has come close to what I have done here is Christopher Langan… who was in the Quiness Book World Records has the smartest man in the world until they removed that category for political correctness.

13

Holy shit… you actually think you’ve proven something don’t you?

half your shit was flawed and biased…

Your whole argument relies on tautologies which are basically “defiinitions”… and you only really speak to the nature of “existence”… and you confuse existence as a property and catagory half the time.

“All things have existence” is existence as a property of all things… “all things are existence” is existence as a catagory, under which all things exist.

existence is not a property… but a catagory of things with properties…

No one is buying your bullshit…

14

You are welcome to write “all things are existence” in logical form;

“existential quantification is the predication of a property or relation to at least one member of the domain”

Therefore, ∃ can be interpreted as “for at least one”

“universal quantification asserts that the property or relation holds for any members of the domain”

Therefore, ∀ can be interpreted as “for all”

We will assume that you mean “for all” when you say all. That “all things” is not an object but rather that “thing” is the object for which you mean all of them.

What do you mean by “are”???

Do you mean “equals”, “involves”, “has the property of”, or “exists as/in”???

  1. for all (thing) equals existence
  2. for all (thing) involves existence
  3. for all (thing) has the property of existence
  4. for all (thing) exists in existence

We can safely assume from your comment on existence not being a property that you did not mean (3).

  1. for all (thing) equals existence
  2. for all (thing) involves existence
  3. for all (thing) exists in existence

Now what do you mean by “existence”? Surely you don’t mean “for at least one”. LOL

  1. for all (thing) equals for at least one
  2. for all (thing) involves for at least one
  3. for all (thing) exists in for at least one

None of that makes sense, so you are obviously not using “existence” to mean the existential quantifier.

You said you are using “existence as a category, under which all things exist”… in other words you are using the Aristotelian category of substance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_%28philosophy%29

So we can replace your “existence” with substance.

  1. for all (thing) equals substance
  2. for all (thing) involves substance
  3. for all (thing) exists in substance

It looks like we can rule out (1) because for a thing to equal substance it must have necessary existence. And obviously only one thing can have such necessary existence, namely substance itself. “all things” is not the object, “thing” is.

  1. for all (thing) involves substance
  2. for all (thing) exist in substance

Both of these seem to work. My main disagreement with your statement was the interpretation of (1).

Now lets look at mine;

for all (thing) has the property of substance

For anything to exist it must have the property of substance. Therefore my statement is valid under your use of the Aristotelian category of substance.

Further, identity morphism shows that all things that exist in an endomorphism “A” have the property of “A”

idA: A → A

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphism

This fact is central to Category Theory! LOL

15

You said: “Nothing is nonexistence”

“A ↔ A” is no way to reprisent this statement… but given your use of a bi-conditional I’m guessing you mean to say that nothingness and nonexistence are equivolent.

you then go on to say “Something is essentially existence.”

which is saying that existence is a thing… an individual constant. Which is nonsense… since existence is a catagory or set, if you will… there is no one thing that is existence… existence is the catagory under which “things” belong…

You say:

You’re way off the planet with this whole “it’s absurde because that would mean all things have necissary existence”… and you are contradicting yourself as well…

it follows from your own sorry tautology that if there were no-things then there would be no-existence… Therefor existence is not only contingent, but it also follows that existence has a bi-conditional relationship with the “being” of a thing or things…

So when I say all things are existence… It’s not because they exist as existence, whatever the hell that means… but because they belong to the catagory “existence”.

I suppose the way you would want to write this down would be

S = is a member of the catagory “something”
E = Is a member of the catagory “existence”
(x) (Sx ↔ Ex)

for all x, x is “something” if and only if x is part of existence.

And if we take causation for granted… it follows that, at any given time there is at least one (possibly more) x such that x is “something” and part (if not all) of “existence”… but it does not follow that it was the same thing(s) through all time… though it could be… it could be all that exists has always existed and will always exist… or it could be that something existed that created all other things through it’s own destruction… or whatever else you can dream up… the only possibility you have excluded is something coming into existene without a cause (or as you would put it: “being caused by nothing”)… and you did it by taking causation for granted…

Not much of a proof…

Oh and P.S. “A ≡ A → ¬A ≡ ¬A” is utter gibberish… you just said
“A is true if and only if, A being true entails A not being true, which is true if and only if A is not true”
Bravo, sir! Bravo! =D>

16

How the hell does my statement “Nothing is nonexistence” have anything to do with the logical form of yours; “all things are existence”?

NEVER did I claim my statement is based on “A ↔ A”

I clearly point out it is based on; (A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) “Nothing equals nor exists as nothing” therefore “Nothing is nonexistence”… corollary “something is essentially existence”

Nothing and nonexistence are definitional synonyms… so I have merely said an ABSOLUTE TRUTH already well known IN THE DICTIONARY.

Then the corollary “something is essentially existence” this is in fact what the category of substance IS.

DO YOURSELF a favor and stop using the word “existence” when you clearly mean substance!!!

The word existence can imply the existential qualifier but you are not using the word in this way… in fact you are using it as a category which is SUBSTANCE.

Substance is a thing. And all things HAVE substance.

READ THESE links if you are absurd enough to even try using my own philosophy against me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_%28philosophy%29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

My tautologies DO NOT use a bi-conditional relationship in the said proposition. This is your fabrication.

It’s called the distributive law! Which means even your own proposition has an inverse (¬Sx ↔ ¬Ex) that is true if your original proposition is true.

17

You need lessons in symbolic logic.

(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

btw… THIS “≡” is a bi-conditional

First thing’s first… (∃Ax)(A = x) is meaningless… it should read (∃x)(Ax)

and your statement reads: “Nothing, if and only if, nothing AND there exists an x such that x is nothing”

clearly you have no idea what it is you are writing down… and you can hardly blame me for being unable to decipher your ramblings the way you meant them…

“Nothing is nonexistence” Seems to say either that there is no such thing as nonexistence.
~(∃x: Nx) N being nonexistence

or it could mean that A is the same as N. which would be (A ↔ N)

Or both… which is what I’m guessing you were trying to write down in your own strange way.

(Ax ↔ Nx) ^ ~(∃x: Ax) maybe?

[-X

ALL “things” are essentially existence. not “some”…

Let
T = thing
N = Nonexistence
E = existence
A = nothing

T1. (Ax ↔ Nx) (nothing and nonexistence have the same meaning)
T2. (~Ax ↔ Tx) (contradictory meanings of nothing and thing)
T3. (~Nx ↔ Ex) (contradictory meanings of nonexistence and existence)

(~Ax → ~Nx → Ex) → (~Ax → Ex)
(Ex → ~Nx → ~Ax) → (Ex → ~Ax)
(~Ax ↔ Ex) → (x)(Ax v Ex)

(Tx → ~Ax → Ex) → (Tx → Ex)
(Ex → ~Ax → Tx) → (Ex → Tx)
(Ex ↔ Tx) → (x)((Ex ^ Tx) v ~(Ex ^ Tx))

((x)(Ax v Ex) ^ (x)((Ex ^ Tx) v ~(Ex ^ Tx))) → ((x)(Ax v (Ex ^ Tx)))

  1. (x)(Ax v (Ex ^ Tx))
  2. ~(∃x: Ax)
  3. (x)(Tx ^ Ex)
    QED

and just in case you can’t read that… it basically says

If x is nothing, then it is part of nonexistence, and if x is part of nonexistence, then x is not part of existence, which in short means that if x is nothing then x is not part of existence.
if x is part of existence, then x is not part of nonexistence and if x is not part of nonexistence then x is not nothing. which in short means that if x is part of existence, it is not nothing.
therefor we can conclude that for all x, x is either nothing, or it is part of existence.

if x is a thing, then it x is not nothing, and if x is not nothing then it is part of existence. in short: If x is a thing, it is part of existence.
If x is part of existence, then x is not nothing and if x is not nothing then x is a thing. in short. if x is a part of existence then x is a thing.
So we can also conclude that for all x, x is either a thing and is part of existence OR it is not a thing and is not part of existence.

and so we know that for all x, x is either nothing or part of existence AND a thing

  1. For all x, x is either nothing or it’s part of existence and a thing
  2. There does NOT exist any x such that x is nothing.
  3. Therefor ALL x are things and ALL “things” are part of existence.

If you have a problem with this… look to thine own ass…

This follows from your tautology…

And if you mean to say something like Existence is not an empty set…
(∃x: Ex)
then that does not follow from any of your tautologies. and “something is essentially existence” is dead wrong however the hell you meant it. It’s either ALL THINGS… or it’s just wrong.

It might follow from the fact that I’m actually dumb enough to waste my time pointing this out to you, that something exists… but it does not follow from your tautology.

If you don’t see the difference between (~Sx ↔ ~Ex) and (A ↔ ~A) then you are too far gone for me to help you…

18

You are right, equivalence is bi-conditional.

If your version of the equation does not translate into a sentence that reads “X exists as X” than you have NOT corrected my equation. It is not uncommon for one to create new forms of mathematical expression on topics never previously covered… such as Reflexivity of Existence.

Notice what you said; “ALL “things” are essentially existence. not “some”…”

… which was in response to my corollary?; “something is essentially existence”

Possibly you do not understand the semantics that you are using;

Definition of “essentially”; “Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.”
Definition of “essence”; “The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.” and “The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.”

Another way to say my corollary which may make it clearer for you is; “something is essential to existence”

First of all my corollary does not necessarily imply that all things are not essential to existence. It merely implies that a minimum of something is essential to existence. Is not something an unspecified set of all things?

You did NOT prove that “ALL things are essential to existence”… and it seems that you did not even try too because more likely you did not understand what you were claiming.

Of course ALL “things” (in a static reference frame) have existence. BUT NOT ALL “things” have NECESSARY existence!

If I don’t see the difference??? What the hell are you talking about…?

The negation “no” on “thing” is on BOTH SIDES of the bi-conditional.

I suppose you conveniently and adversarially interpretated “A ≡ A → ¬A ≡ ¬A” as “A ≡ (A → ¬A) ≡ ¬A” instead of “(A ≡ A) → (¬A ≡ ¬A)”

19

A = A
It needs not be explicitly stated… All things exist as themselves.

I have corrected your “equation”.

The point is that the thing “essential to existence” is exactly the same thing that is “essential to thingness”. and if you would think about it that means existence is a CATAGORY containing all THINGS. It is not a thing-in-itself with any essence other than it’s definition. So what is essential to existence is a THING… any THING… ALL THINGS, in fact.

ALL things are essential to existence, because of the bi-conditional relationship.

No one is giving an exhaustive list of “things”… only that all THINGS must necissarily exist, in order to be THINGS to begin with… and existence must necissarily contain ALL THINGS in order to be existence… you get the picture?

I did in fact “prove” it… The bi-conditional relationship between “thing” and “existence” is proof…

Yes they do… If they did not “have existence” then they would not be “things” to begin with. Think about it.

20

Of course all things exist as themselves. LOL

That’s what makes Reflexivity of Existence a logical tautology as a sense of “is” in the form of “A is A”… just like the other senses of “is”; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence.

The fact is, two of these logical tautologies from “A is A” are already well known;

A ≡ A “A equals A” Law of Identity
A → A “A involves A” Reflexivity of Implication

So the novelty that I have highlighted for the world is that

idA: A → A “A has the property of A” Identity Morphism

is also a logical tautology from “A is A”… only really advanced mathematicians know about Identity Morphism…

And basically no one prior to me has known about or even tried to express Reflexivity of Existence;

b(A = x)[/b] “A exists as A”

And by the way “A = A” cannot be used as Sittlichkeit pointed out for me.

Essentially I have to use the equivalence (≡) instead of equality (=) because the “ubiquitous equivalence relation is the equality (”=“) relation between elements of any set” and in predicate logic “we can’t quantify over functional predicates”;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_predicate

All things are not eternal. Do you understand that? Do you believe there is at least something that is eternal.? … in other words that is essential to existence?

Maybe you should read your proof again… it spoke nothing about the essence of existence.

Read what I said again… I clearly agreed that they “have existence” BUT they DO NOT have necessary existence.

Apparently you cannot comprehend there is a difference.