on what there is

This is a work in progress. More posts will arise in the future as work is done.

What I am trying to prove

Everything reduces to God, consciousness, bodies, properties and beliefs. The advantages of attempting to solve this problem gives us an insight into almost every important philosophical question.

How I will prove it

Logical positivism famously claimed that metaphysical statements could not be falsified. Nothing could be further from the truth. If two statements contradict each other, then one of them is false. In order for a human to function they must believe thousands of statements. At any one time all of us are simultaneously believing several contradictory statements that we are unaware of. It is my ambition to attempt to spell out hundreds or statements, define precisely what they mean and show that they are not in contradiction with each other, nor do they contradict any other obvious belief that any normal person would have. I will use two techniques for proving things: induction and deduction. With induction I will analyze the flawed scientific evidence available to me, then will use my intuition to assert that the evidence implies the existence of God, consciousness and bodies which have certain essential properties. Using those basic facts I will then use the tools of logical deduction to demonstrate how everything that exists reduces to the five entities mentioned above.

What I am not trying to prove

I am not trying to prove that all causes fit into a few manageable categories and each type of cause has the following explanation. There is simply too much about the universe that we do not understand for that to be possible. Moreover, all knowledge ends in infinite regress or a circle.

_The universe (nature) contains all that exists.
_Everything that exists in the universe is an entity (being).
_An entity can be either a cause or it can be an effect or neither.
_All causes are real causes.
_A cause can be either consciousness or God.
_Consciousness believes and causes ALL bodies to move.
_If consciousness causes all bodies to move, then all bodies are conscious. (This belief is called panpsychism.)

(Consciousness is synonymous with intelligence, subject, awareness, person, agent, mind.  The plural of consciousness is subjects.  If we say: "I use my reason to determine that if X then Y, then consciousness is synonymous with reason.  If we say my reason for doing X was Y, then reason is synonymous with goal not consciousness.  We often typically make a distinction between perception and consciousness but this is not necessary.  If one perceives an body, then one is conscious of it and if one is conscious of an body, then one perceives it.  The reason why we have the word perceive is that it is awkward to say: consciousness is conscious of bodies, it's much easier to say consciousness perceives bodies.  There are many types of consciousness which we will discuss later.)

_God causes bodies moved by consciousness to stay within certain limits.

_If God causes bodies moved by consciousness to stay within certain limits, then bodies appear to behave according to patterns.
_If bodies appear to behave according to patterns, then these patterns can be described with an equation.
_If a pattern can be described with an equation, then it is a law of motion.
_Therefore God’s decisions cause the laws of motion.
_Therefore laws of motion do not exist independent of God.
_If all causes are real causes and laws of motions do not cause, then laws of motion do not have real existence.

_An effect can be either real or abstract.
_An effect is real iff consciousness realizes (actualizes) its belief and effect is abstract if consciousness does not realize its belief.
_If consciousness realizes its belief, then it attempts to move matter according to its belief.
_Real effects are bodies (matter, material).

_An body is an bodies iff it exists in physical space and can be moved by consciousness.
_A fermion does not occupy the same space as another fermion.
_If a boson is absorbed and emitted by other fermions, then it causes fermions to change their direction. Bosons can occupy the same space as other bosons.
_An effect is abstract iff consciousness does not attempt to move matter in accord with its belief, or realize its belief.
_There are two types of abstract effects: properties and beliefs.
_Properties describe (name) entities.
(Property is synonymous with predicates, descriptions, traits, attributes, features, characteristics.)
_A belief is a belief iff consciousness asserts that a property describes an entity.
(Belief is synonymous with thought, idea, sentence, claim, statement, proposition. For example, “Hannah Arendt was the first famous female philosopher,” Hannah Arendt is the entity that is being described and “was the first famous female philosopher” is the property that describes her.)

_Real effects (bodies) can be observed and causes cannot be observed.

_All bodies are effects.
_All effects can in principle be observed.
_Therefore, all bodies can be observed.

_Consciousness and God are causes.
_Causation cannot be observed.
_Therefore, consciousness and God cannot be observed.

_Space-time (world) enables entities to stand in relation to each other.
_Space (world) enables different bodies to stand in relation to each other.
_Time enables the same body to stand in relation to itself.
_There are three types of space (worlds): physical, mental and abstract.
_Physical space enables real bodies to stand in relation to each other.
_Consciousness exists alone in mental space.
_Abstract space enables beliefs and properties to stand in relation to each other.

argument for the existence of the mental world

_If consciousness cannot be observed, then it does not exist in physical space.
_If consciousness does not exist in physical space, then it exists in a different space which we call mental space (imagination, mind).

You do not seem to understand the point of the logical empiricists. They were claiming that metaphysical claims have no consequences that could be seriously taken to contradict statements that originate in observation. They clearly believed in logic and in deriving statements through logic.

This makes it looks like you are merely going to assume what you want and then re-interpret statements in order to make them accord with your metaphysical claims. This is exactly what the logical empiricists claim that many who practice metaphysics do.

So far, I do not see any argument and I doubt we will see any serious argument on even a small part of this incredibly huge project. However, perhaps you could explain why you adopt the idea that nothing is both a cause and an effect?

The basic point of your post was to say that you don’t like my ideas, but you didn’t make an attempt to prove that any of my ideas are contradictory. I will be positing my arguments for why this exists rather than another conception soon.

If it is both a cause and an effect, then it’s an entity.

Not surprisingly, you are ignoring the actual points I made about the logical empiricists. But apparently you like to wallow in your ignorance.

But are we to read your “chart” as indicating that every entity is God?

No. Just in a game of chess: God is the rules, the players are consciousness and the pieces are the bodies. All three distinct from each other.

I have a new argument for why cause and effect are not one.

C1 → E1
C2 → E2
C3 → E3

C1 = E1 → CE1
C2 = E2 → CE2
C3 = E3 → CE3

So if Cause and Effect are one, then there is nothing to stop CE1 CE2 and CE3 from becoming one. If that is the case then the whole universe would be one giant mishmash of cause and effect, or it would lead to hard determinism and all its absurdities. If everything is determined, then there is no need for thought and language becomes impossible.

I’m sorry, but that last post with the unexplained abbreviations is the final evidence to indicate that you really aren’t competent. I’m sorry, but I can’t help you.

I hope you have good health insurance.

That’s a non argument. You have failed to refute me.

What you could say if you were a gentleman is the following: I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that I don’t understand. That’s perfectly understandable. I don’t understand Paul Horwich, but do I believe that I have refuted him? Of course not.