Hi all, I talked with Ard Louis, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Oxford, around the metaphysical assumptions underlying Physics and Science in general, and the room for faith and beauty in the fields of abstract thought. Apparently there are more people who identify as in the Sciences than in the Arts at academic institutions and that sparked this conversation which I really enjoyed, hope you do too!

https://youtu.be/JyAoxYnQK-o

Scientific reality is textual

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-reality-is-textual.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/572639157/Scientific-Reality-is-Textual

the absurdity of reality

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/logic.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/304318409/reality-ends-in-absurdity

Prolegomenon-to-a-Grand-Unified-Theory

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Prolegomenon.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/508721702/Prolegomenon-to-a-Grand-Unified-Theory

Someone must notice it.Both monothetic constructer.

Life is the faculty of reacting

this formula extends the definition of Life

to include minerals

we do not distinguish inorganic bodies from organic bodies

so as to accord life only to the latter

we admit that there are organized beings

and others which are not yet organized

but the latter bear

in their characteristics

(for example, chemical affinity)

the elements that give an impetus for future organization

this however

will not take place in a continuous fashion

but through the necessary destruction of forms

for the purpose of "rebirth"

so to speak

in higher state

it is not the form that is transmitted

but the "permanent" moment of the Substance

this permanent moment (the Egyptian ka)

registers the experience of the transitory form

thus Life is in all things

a ternary complex formed by an active Cause

against a passive resistance

that is nonetheless reactive in turn

this reaction is the apparent effect

and the whole

is the vital phenomenon.

Hi all, I've started a new YouTube series on the ontology and physical basis of Quantum Mechanics with Episode 1 on Wave-Particle Duality and the Single Slit experiment, would love your feedback!

https://youtu.be/r9C6STg8HI0

Episode 2 covers the Double Slit experiment with observation (my favourite experiment of all time!) Hope it's of interest.

Hi all,

I made a video on my take on Plato's Cave and the lessons we can learn from it. I don't stick to Plato's conclusion from the fable but look at it in terms of how what we perceive with our sense impressions is necessarily divorced from the reality which gives rise to our sense perceptions. Hope it's of interest x

https://youtu.be/QpC4-6JqaBY

Conclusions

1.	The input cannot be derived from the output.  
        a. The source has been hashed, there’s no point trying to figure out what it is or was or will be. Therefore,   
2.	All knowledge is meaningless.  
        a. Knowledge corresponds to nothing. The thing that is known cannot be derived from the known as such. The known as such is detached from whatever it supposedly “references” and thus, in this detachment,   
        b. is free. Therefore,  
3.	All knowledge (output) is transferable to an “unrelated” known (input).  
        a. Because knowledge corresponds to nothing, it can freely correspond to anything. For example,   
             ‘. the position of celestial bodies, as driven by impersonal mechanics, can correlate with a conscious entity’s psychic disposition; and,  
             “. the natural law of cause and effect can correlate with a human individual’s free act of will.  
                 €. “Correlate” does, indeed, imply reciprocity. Thus, for example,  
                      ~. a conscious entity’s psychic disposition can influence the motion of the spheres, as much the latter can influence the former. However,  
4.	The structures that form from the conjunctions of various outputs—the synthetic knowledges and knowns that are formed from knowledges attained from underivable knowns—correspond to neither the outputs themselves nor their conjunctions.  
       a. The act that is at the crux of celestial configurations, natural contingencies, and psychic dispositions, does not refer back to any of these circumstances. These circumstances are not derivable from the act, itself, even if a conscious entity acknowledges the influences of these circumstances upon the act. Therefore,  
           ‘. all acts occur spontaneously; and, more broadly speaking,  
           “. everything is a closed system.  
              €. The appearances of harmony, relation, reciprocity, correspondence, etc., are themselves closed systems; the thing that appears is not derivable from the appearance as such.  
                  ~. The abstract, general, “universal” notions of harmony, relation, reciprocity, correspondence, etc., are also closed systems, and also do not correspond to the concepts of harmony, etc.—the concepts, themselves, only appearing through certain contingent forms of harmony, etc. For example,  
                       !. I see a scene before me—TV on a stand, stand on the floor, framed by the wall behind the TV, an aperture opening into another room, cables and wires adhering to gravity and the limits of space, etc. My notion of harmony, right now, at this moment, is contingent on the specific configuration of these things that I view to be harmonizing with one another. “Harmony”, “itself”, is not derivable from this specific configuration; I see “a” harmony, not “harmony.” I will see “another” harmony later, even if I just turn my head. Therefore,  
                          *. this “harmony” (h-output) is not “harmony” (h-input); it is not an “aspect” of the h-input, since the h-input cannot be derived from the h-output; but rather, it is something completely in itself: self-sufficient and self-grounding. This is to say that  
5.	Everything is suspended in a void.  
       a. No thing rests on any thing; there is no ground that is distinct from the thing which is supposedly “grounded”.  
          ‘. The appearance of grounding is a closed system. The grounded thing is not derivable from the grounded as such.  
             €. The appearance of grounding is grounded in itself. Ground is not derivable from the appearance of such.  
       b. Nothing is contingent; nothing is necessary. There are no accidents, for the substance is not derivable from them.  
       c. There is no “becoming”, for this implies continuity and relation between two distinct things; for example,  
            “. to say that this child “becomes” this adult, is to say that the adult has its ground in the child. But every second, every moment, every movement “of” the child, is not even grounded in the child itself—for the child cannot even be derived from this moment “of” the child, this action “by” it.  
                £. If one wants to speak of an action perpetrated “by” the child, it is more proper to use “by” in the spatial sense (the house sits “by” its owner) than in the agent sense (the house was “made by” its owner).  
            ‘“. If all the moments and actions “by” the child cannot even refer to the child itself—how much less so can the adult, this completely different and closed-off thing, refer to a child that the adult supposedly once “was”? Therefore,  
6.	Everything simply is.  
        a. There is no “was” or “will be”. No thing changes, for no thing is grounded in another thing.  
7.	It can be held as entirely plausible that there is no input.  
        a. Because the input is not derivable from its output, there is no relationship between input and output; and therefore, these terms become completely insufficient to describe the actual situation, which is that of two completely self-sufficient things that are apart from and independent of each other. Therefore,  
8.	There is no knowledge.  
        a. Knowledge implies “knowledge of something”—but if the something and the knowledge of it are completely independent from one another and have no relation to each other, then this knowledge is simply another “something”; and, consequently, this “knowledge” is also not known, for the “knowledge of this ‘knowledge’”, is just another completely unrelated “something”. Therefore,  
9.	Nothing is known.

I would like to invite you to a philosophy discord server. For teachers, students, and autodidacts.

The purpose of this discord chat is dedicated to the engagement of philosophical discourse and the exploration of ideas in the history of philosophy. Our main goal is to become more knowledgeable about historical thinkers and ideas from every philosophical domain through interpersonal dialogues. We are not a debate server. Argument is a method used by philosophy, but this isn’t to be confused with debate. The latter is competitive in nature, whereas the former is a cooperative endeavor. Philosophy is a group project that aims to determine what is true, and this server is a place for this activity.  Here is the invite https://discord.gg/NyesZ6e5cp

Invite link is hopefully permanent, so you won't have to worry whether the link is working if you're reading this sometime in the future.

See you all there!

Recently, due to boredom and the strong feeling that everything I think is about concepts that I could not really define or about concepts derived from others that I could not really define, I began to develop (as I could) the axiomatics underlying my thinking to feel more confident about my conclusions by having my thoughts more systematized. The purpose of this exercise is not so much the logical system itself but rather the process –since it clarifies and structures my ideas–.

Well, the fact is that I was thinking of basing it on 3 types of propositions: undefined concepts (e.g. the concepts in question), defined concepts (e.g. the concept of world) and axioms (e.g. Leibniz's principle of identity of indiscernibles). Of course, since I want to avoid any cyclicity, I will have to base the logical system on this triad of propositions –undefined concepts are unavoidable by the Münchhausen trilemma–. The thing is that I have provisionally left the concepts 'entity' and 'existence in a world' as undefined.

• About 'entity': I know that it can be defined as that which is, but one could also say that 'being' can be defined as the sufficient and necessary property common to all entities. In that sense, I consider ‘entity’ and ‘being’ to be explanatorily equivalent. In fact, I have provisionally opted for the former because it was more practical for the other concept. The only thing that I have decided about this concept is that I will formally denote the set of all entities as Ens (from the Latin ens).

• About 'existence in a world': I first considered defining it as the ability of an entity to interact with other entities in the given world. But then I realized that from this followed two big issues: (1) on the one hand it seemed to me more of a characterization –which really presupposes non-immediate characteristics of the concept in question– than a definition and (2) on the other hand it is to some extent cyclical because, to know if the other entities are in the world, it must be previously known the existence of at least one of these in the said world. So I decided to temporarily leave it as undefined. The only thing that I have decided is that I will formally denote the assertion “an entity x exists in another entity y” with the notation x◊y as if it were a mathematical relationship between entities. Then I defined the concept 'world' as every entity Ω∈Ens such that ∃x∈Ens: x◊Ω.

Hence, the question arises: are the concepts 'entity' and 'existence in a world' definable? That is, are there some concepts more fundamental than these that allow their definability? Thanks for reading.

All existence is life

and all existence is consciousness

this is a brute fact

a brute fact can be subjected to no question

because there can be no answer to such

there can be no answer

because any answer depends upon

a superior cause to the question

there is no superior or prior cause to existence

existence is not a question

nor is it an answer

abiogenesis is an absurdity

since it presumes or depends upon the existence

of an abiological component to reality

that is a logical impossibility

there is nothing in existence which is not alive and living

existence is a complete living organism

in the totality of its entirety.

All that exists,

in whatever mode this may be,

necessarily participates in universal principles,

and nothing exists

except by participation in these principles,

which are the eternal

and which are the immutable essences contained

in the permanent actuality of the divine intellect.

Consequently,

it can be said that all things,

however contingent they may be in themselves,

express or represent these principles

in their own way and according to their own order of existence,

for otherwise they would be purely and simply nothingness.

Thus, from one order to another order,

all things are linked together and they correspond,

to come together in total and in universal harmony,

for harmony

is nothing other than the reflection of principle unity

in the manifested world;

and it is this correspondence

that is the veritable basis of symbolism.

Have some ONG I need to swap to ONT or any other coin to send back to Binance.US. Don’t see any options to do that? Any help would be great! Thanks!

Im not 100% sure if this is an ontological argument, but this is a problem that has bugged me for some time now. The word "nothing" according to dictionary definition means "absence of things". Things are objects that exist, so if those composites are absent, how can it exist?

I recently learned of simples, and as far as I have been able to understand, simples are the elements of the universe, the fabric of existence. They determine what exists, but there's a catch: they can't determine what doesn't. The only way they can determine what doesn't exist is if they themselves are non-existent, which is impossible.

The term "nothing" is used in the English language to describe the absence of any specific thing, and the fact that this word requires context takes away from the original meaning intended for it, which is "absence of things". You could see an empty box and say "there's nothing in it", but that would not be true. The box has billions of atoms and quadrillions of fundamental subatomic particles. There are also molecules like oxygen, dust, etc. The fact that there is no thing of value in the box large enough to be considered a thing, does it really mean that there is "nothing" in the box?

Suppose we remove everything that makes the inside of the box a thing: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, their strings, virtual particles, even concepts that the inside of the box follows, such as the laws of physics and time. Put that in your box and tell me: would there now be NO THING in the box (remember, as long as it is considered a "thing", it has to be absent in order to keep its status as nothing)? Sadly, no. The fact that we describe "nothing" as if it were a thing, materializes nothing into a thing, and creates a paradox. Nothing can't exist, because the universe (whether quantum or external) simply has too many "things" to leave room for nothing.

A friend of mine mentioned that dark matter and dark energy themselves are the existing condensations of nothing. I thought "well, how can this be? Dark matter and dark energy are things, if it takes up space and there is more than 0 of it, it's obviously a thing. This contradicts the meaning of 'nothing', and this creates another paradox". Ultimately, our language and perception of reality, and the laws we assigned it don't allow for nothing exist, so personally, I don't believe the concept of nothing can exist.

The idea of “I think, therefore I am” is interesting. What is thought? If you cease to think, are you no longer? Are memories required for thought? If you can no longer think, and have no memories of thinking, did you ever really have exist? If nothingness is where I came from, and it’s where I’m going, am I always nothing?

When I read this I am transported as by a poem. I am affected and enhanced. I claim here that this is a very great poem.

Where ontology proceeds into poetry - it begins to obtain itself.

''If we define Being in the universal sense as the principle of manifestation, and at the same time as comprising in itself the totality of possibilities of all manifestation, we must say that Being is not infinite because it does not coincide with total Possibility; and all the more so because Being, as the principle of manifestation, although it does indeed comprise all the possibilities of manifestation, does so only insofar as they are actually manifested. Outside of Being, therefore, are all the rest, that is all the possibilities of non-manifestation, as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves insofar as they are in the unmanifested state; and included among these is Being itself, which cannot belong to manifestation since it is the principle thereof, and in consequence is itself unmanifested. For want of any other term, we are obliged to designate all that is thus outside and beyond Being as "Non-Being", but for us this negative term is in no way synonym for 'nothingness'.'' - Rene Guenon.

Once everyone gets past the whole “my ONT is stuck in Exodus wallet because I don’t have any ONG to stake it or transfer it”, there are still hurdles to jump through.

So you look at all the posts of people with their money stuck begging for some ONG. You do some research then download the ONTO wallet and buy some more ONT to send to it because it has free transfer from ONT to ONG built into the wallet. You convert a few ONT to ONG, then you send the ONG to Exodus so you can transfer your ONT over to the ONTO wallet and stake here because your butt hurt about falling for the Chinese finger trap that is the dual token model and getting your coins stuck in the Exodus wallet. Ok cool you have your coins staked in ONTO and your feeling pretty good about your self and you are watching your ONG grow…….

Then you have a bunch of them and want to convert them to ONT and restake? Well too bad because you fell for part 2 of the Ontology Chinese finger trap. The wallet only converts one direction. So if you want to do anything with the ONG you have to transfer to an exchange (fee) and do a double conversion (probably 2 Etherium gas fees) and send back (another fee) then stake. Then these are no tokens left and you just wasted your time and lost all your ONG.

Ontology has seriously created the ultimate Chinese finger trap.

I wish I had never heard of this project.

A Prolegomenon to a Grand Unified Theory

Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies)

He is Australia's leading erotic poet: poetry is for free in pdf

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/book-genre/poetry/

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Prolegomenon.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/508721702/Prolegomenon-to-a-Grand-Unified-Theory