The Real Ontological Proof

dkane75 · October 22, 2007, 4:24pm

(Version 1)

Notice: You are free to copy and redistribute this work as long as you do not modify it in any way.

Preface

This is really a kind of Ontological hypothesis and subsequent Ontological deduction. However, the term “Ontological Proof” is just too sexy to resist!

(This is an attempt to explain what Deep Thought actually meant by “42”. (It’s a “Hitchhiker’s” thing!))

Consider the idea of space.

In order for it to physically exist, space must be internally cohesive: it must be substantial.

Substantial space can be understood through the idea of pure chaos.

Pure chaos, itself, is unstructured. It is actively potential and potentially active: it is absolute creativity.

Externally regarded, pure creative chaos and pure inert space are indentical: they are not phenomenal.

However, pure inert space cannot possibly exist because it is not internally cohesive. With pure inert space, there cannot even be nothingness.

Therefore, the space that everywhere surrounds us is necessarily creative. It cannot be otherwise.

Pure creative chaos is hereby defined as: Energy.

It is extremely important to understand that, qua Energy, there is no such thing as scale, whether durational or extensive.

Energy freely intensifies (condenses) and extensifies (expands).

An Energy intensity is said to be a mass or a being: this is the massive form of Energy.

An Energy extensity is said to be a wave or a radiance: this is the radiant form of Energy.

There are not any possible concepts as absolute massive-Energy or absolute radiant-Energy. These phrases are internally contradictory. Therefore, any determinations of massive-Energy or radiant-Energy are necessarily relative.

There truly is no internality or externality. All beings are constitued by the perfectly entangled “fabric” that is known as Energy. There cannot be any boundaries to separate Energy from itself.

It may be incorrectly thought that massive-Energy causes intensification (condensation). This illusion is called gravity. The correct interpretation is that Energy is perfectly free to intensify, at any time, on any scale. The illusion of gravity is entirely dependent upon a scalar prejudice. A being of a small enough scale will simply experience all of this intensity as radiant-Energy (extensity).

The opposite is also true: Energy is perfectly free to extensify, at any time, on any scale. However, a being of a large enough scale will simply experience all of this extensity as massive-Energy (intensity).

Phenomena are given to beings only by way of radiant-Energy.

The sum total of all phenomena given to a being determines its Universe. Beings that tranform their constituent massive-Energy into radiant-Energy are directly phenomenal. Beings that scatter radiant-Energy are indirectly phenomenal. Beings, as such, are not phenomenal, and are not part of any given being’s Universe.

The impossible case of an external perspective of the pure creative chaos that is Energy leads beings to speculate about being-as-such. They have given this concept such names as The Supreme Being or God. All arguments concerning an intentionality that underlies phenomenal regularity are cases of scalar prejudice. On smaller scales, the regularities between beings are understood only as chaotic radiant-Energy. To speak of intentionality is to debase the true “power” of Energy. Energy, as pure creative chaos, is the mightiest of all possible Supreme Beings.

Scalar prejudice can give rise to the illusion of determinism, which is the source of the misguided notions of mathematical ontology (logical positivism) and theistic ontology (theology). Mathematics and theology are merely practical and not truthful.

This argument is [perhaps] the best available answer to the biggest philosophical and scientific conundrums, such as the mind-body duality and the conflict between gravitational theory and quantum theory.

Biography: Dennis Kane was born in Tallahassee, Florida, USA in 1975 and raised in Tampa, Florida, USA. He graduated from Chamberlain High School in Tampa in 1993.

dkane75 · October 22, 2007, 6:15pm

And now on the web:

The Real Ontological Proof

dkane75 · October 22, 2007, 9:34pm

I’ve posted this same post in 3 other philosophy forums. There has been precisely zero response concerning the gist of what I am saying.

Which is:

Scalar relativism has never been applied towards the concepts of gravity and radiant energy.

Why not?

Because of an ingrained “scalar bigotry” that resides inside of all of us, as human beings.

You know what allowed me to come to these realizations?

E=mc^2.

All you have to do is rearrange it to produce:

m=E/c^2.

This new way of looking at the same old equation leads us to believe that the concept of mass is wholly contained within the concept of energy.

Equation 1 causes us to believe that mass is primary, and that c^2 is the primary “thing” that activates mass. This is an unnecessary complication. Equation 2 is simple yet sublime.

Energy is primordial! Mass is simply a “privation” of Energy!!

What truth could give one greater joy?

I am Energy!

You are Energy!

The Universe is Energy!

Now, let’s all get together an be Energetic!!

dkane75 · October 23, 2007, 5:29pm

The following is an answer to a response that I received in this thread. (On another forum)

Andrew:

Your article appears to be much too vague. The major premises are undefined, for example, what is “pure chaos” or “creative energy”? After reading it, I was unsure as to what you were attempting to demonstrate/prove. If you want comments, you will need to make your argument clearer. A start would be defining any ideas which a reader would be unfamiliar with (or could not be expected to know, and would be unable to look up) or if they deviate from the typical definitions. From the example above “chaos” makes me think of the entropy of a system
(thermodynamics,) however the context makes me question whether this is what you are reffering to. And a term from your second post “Scalar relativism” I was unable to find any definition of, infact the first google his returns this page. Those are by no means the only two vague terms however. Thus, you cannot expect much response to an article the readers cannot properly understand, so you should go through your post and elabourate, clarify, and define. Then, I’m sure you will get feedback eanough (no promises on the quality of the feedback however )

Response:

Andrew,

I hope you are not just teasing me here! I hope we can get a real dialogue going here, because you are my only hope at the moment. Since you have been so kind to offer constructive criticism, I want to return you the favor by showing you all the respect in the world.

First of all, I understand that this is properly a “science oriented” website and that most of the people here are most likely “scientifically minded” (although I’m not sure precisely what that means). However, this is the philosophy section, and I consider myself a philosopher of the first order, in league with Aristotle and Kant. I am only trying to say that my major points are original, and you will probably not find them anywhere else.

The whole perspective of a scientist is bound up in the concept of the system. Scientists necessarily take systematicity to be a priori, if you will. However, so do religionists. The whole point of systematicity is that there are inviolable laws. The job of a scientist (and a religionist) is to discover these laws, and set them down formulaically, so that they can be “put to good use”.

So, scientists are automatically going to think of “chaos” as a function of some kind of system. The scientist thinks that the idea of chaos is a failure of some kind. If only he had better equipment, he thinks, all of the choas would go away, and the “Theory of Everything” would be born. Enter the Age of Aquarius!

However, the purpose of a philosopher, I feel, is to discover what it is that makes systematicity, as such, possible. This line of questioning is called ontology. In many ways, it is a kind of speculation that arrives at conclusions that cannot possibly be “scientifically disproven”.

You see, in ancient Greece, chaos meant “the primal emptiness, space” (source: Wikipedia). It was only later that the word evolved into the current manifestation of a disordered system. So, my usage of the term “chaos” is vague precisely because I am using it in such a primal manner. I am only trying to get back to its pure philosophical roots.

So I am only taking the ball that was handed to me by the Greeks, and running with it in my own direction (this is what philosophers do). And when I’m done running, I’ll hand it to the next guy who chooses to take it.

Anyway, the original idea of chaos is our modern idea of empty space. It is simply a medium to be “drawn upon”, if you will. However, I came to feel that this idea of space is impossible. Something that is completely inert cannot cohere to itself. In fact, I define our current idea of space as “the principle of differentiation”, which is not a thing-in-itself, but is rather a derivative of another, transcendent principle (please see geocities.com/dkane75/phil.html and the thread entitled “First Metaphysics, redux” at philosophyforum.com for further details).

So, I realized, after several years, that this thing called “empty space” is a fraud in every way. My idea of chaos is of a perfectly free “substance” that is inexhaustibly active. In this way, it is perfectly entangled within itself. Unlike empty space, this “type” of chaos is internally coherent.

I then realized that we already call inexhaustible activity: Energy. So, my idea of chaos has simply endowed the original Greek idea of a passive clearing with the aspect of activity-as-such. Regarded from the outside, both of these types of chaos “appear” the same in that they do not appear at all. However, only my idea of chaos can “act upon” itself. It can freely intensify (condense) or extensify (expand). Furthermore, it can do this on any scale.

I’m not going to pull any punches here. The idea of scalar relativism is potentially revolutionary to the fields of philosophy and physics. I have never heard of it before, either. In fact, my most recent thoughts have been to treat “scale” as the primordial dimension upon which all others depend. I’ll just say that “scale” seems to be the only Ontological dimension.

We humans are ultimately scalar beings, and this scale was arbitrarily determined by what I call: Pure Creative Chaos (PCC for short). It is only by understanding that the scale in which we inhabit is wholly arbitrary that we may rid ourselves of our philosophical and physical dualities (contradictions). Just look at the Mandelbrot set to see where I am coming from with this idea of scale. I would think of PCC as a kind of living Mandelbrot set that uses three dimensions instead of two: every scale within it is at once a superset of an infinite number of scales and a subset of an infinite number of scales. (This is such a bizarre idea that there is no way to wrap your mind around it. You can only surrender to it!)

Because of all of this, there cannot possibly be any idea of absolute distance or absolute duration. (Which is exactly what the scientific paradigm depends on).

Anyway, PCC can do anything it wants within any of its infinite number of scales. Within any given scale, PCC is free to intensify and extensify of its own essential freedom. A being is simply an intensification of PCC, and is understood through the idea of massive-Energy (think of Energy waves knotted upon themselves, such as an electron cloud). A phenomenon is simply an extensification of PCC, and is undersood through the idea of radiant-Energy (think of light waves).

However, the definition of what is a being or what is a phenomenon cannot be absolute! It can only be determined relative to particular beings of particular scales. To a being of a higher scale than ours, our universe is simply massive-Energy. It is not phenomenal, and therefore, it cannot be observed. However, beings within the scale of our universe (like you and me) will be able to witness all of the wonderful phenomena happening around us. We will not, however, be able to witness the phenomena that are happening in scales smaller than ours. This is where the idea of “dark matter” comes into play. We have theoretical reasons to assume that it exists, but it cannot at all be observed.

And within that dark matter, there might very well be universes just like ours, and the beings in those universes might very well have their own dark matter that they are pondering over. Also, we are very possibly some other beings’ dark matter, who are in turn dark matter for someone else! (Again, I realize that this is all perfectly mind-boggling.)

So anyways, Andrew, I hope you will excuse me for the unintended vagueness, because it is simply an effect of the fact that these things have never before been explicitly stated as possibilities in this kind of everyday language. I am sure, however, that many theoretical physicists have had thoughts much like these. (They just might not have the philosophical intuition required to state their thoughts like I do.)

In my excitement of writing all of this, there may have been some things that slipped my mind. I hope you will continue to give me constructive criticism!

dkane75 · October 23, 2007, 7:47pm

Let me just clarify this, because I didn’t word it all that well. What I should have said is that there cannot possibly be any such thing as an absolute scale, either in terms of temporality or extensiveness.

In other words, mathematical inquiries into the nature of the universe (string theory is wholly a mathematical, rather than a phenomenal, investigation), depend on the fact that there is only one possible scale within Everything That Can Possibly Be exists. They depend of the fact that there are absolutely small scalar levels as well as absolutely large scalar levels. They are always saying things like, “On the 10^-35 meter level, the behavior of reality is such and such.” Well, this level is not a different scale in the sense that I am talking about.

I am referring to scales that cannot possibly be referred to by using our units of measure, because they cannot possibly be observed.

In the example of the Mandlebrot set, each distinct scalar level yields observations that are identical to any other level. In the same way, my idea of an “ontological scale” is that every distict scale can possibly yield similiar physical behaviours as are observed in the scale in which we presently exist. In a bizarre way, a universe that is relatively the size of a neutrino to another universe can both be of the same size. What I simply mean is that the beings native to each particular scale can “feel” that their universes are exactly the same size.

I feel that this level of philosophical sophistication absolutely blows all mathemtical ontologies (string theories) out of the water. I don’t need their fancy formulations if I can take a single philosophical concept and take it to its logical “breaking point”.

When people see a whole bunch of scientific jargon in my writings, they think that I am conducting an investigation using the scientific/Popperian paradigm. I am only attempting to go “one up” on those theoreticians who are trying to lay claim to a “Theory of Everything”. If they want to get mathematical, I’ll get mathematical right back. At the mathematical extreme, there is this thing called infinity. I am simply taking that notion seriously, rather than stopping at arbitrary levels where some supposed “strings” live.