one needs to begin with a theoretical minimum and work out what is inevitable.
Philosopher descartes assumption that the only true certainty from a personal perspective is one's own existence is incomplete. If you start from a theoretical minimum of zero assumption you can construct certainties through inevitabilities. Even forgetting that our ability to construct reasoned thinking requires many facets to support it you can start by asking could 'nothing' exist? At the fundamental level without any things to compare it to, what is nothing? Nothing strictly speaking refers to zero quantity of some described thing.For example 'there's nothing in the larder' would have the context zero food items. It does not mean there are no insects. It doesn't mean there are no shelves. It certainly doesn't mean no dimensions of time or space. So at the fundamental level you can;t have nothing without something to compare it to. This is tricky to accept because we have an inherent knowledge of things which give us the concept of nothing in our minds.But if we ask could there be nothing at all- or COULD there ever have been nothing i think it;s impossible in isolation- as the only 'thing'. In fact nothing has a description as 'something'!You could then say that uniqueness exists. The single quantity of nothing 'exists'. But then that means 0=1! If not what is zero quantity of nothing (zero quantity of something is, at 'higher levels, the converse and 'non' example of what is described. e.g. we have, say, atoms. and everywhere where atoms are not is where there are zero quantity of atoms (leaving aside the non-fixed lump of matter nature of atoms and just imagining them as neat blocks).
So nothing alone could never have been!And so on this builds and builds. Pretty quickly one can develop an entire model explaining our existence. Including the nature of perception and the human soul, no less! But it requires much rethinking because it's easy to relax rigour and accidently cheat, I am still ironing out leaps in such rgour before I can say for certain that I have the meaning of everything. But delving in at the deep end with a pre- knowledge of all of human scientific understanding vastly over-complicates some very simple fundamental concepts. Perhaps someone can discuss this with me if they understand maths to , say, grade b gcse . It really does not take more. Just an interest and ability to form quite short chains of logic. If you got the above you can get the rest. Over acceptance of science through a physics phd, say, may even hamper thinking which does not march alongside that knowledge. I accept (even with a maths degree) that evolution could have occured through a mind outside physical existence- because I have a model for this. And when you then compare that model to the way science flukes so many parameters which are 'just right' for human existence you may wonder how anyone could believe in the absurdity of our physics!'Quite apart from it lacking explanations for perception, emotions , feeling of self and, oh yes, gravity! Evolution of mind and intelligence could make up- compute - the rules of science and then create a virtual world for minds to imagine (much like a computer virtual reality but much more advanced than the level of computation I am aware of). Whatch the film avatar and then ask yourselves if you're sure where you truly exist. Is it in another physical space? Are you just a mind? Hmmm? Anyway if there are just minds and computation isn't that potentially better? No limit on resources. No limit on what you can do. But why don't we all have brilliant lives in that case? Or does everyone else except........ me? Perhaps the elite of society know full well. And this life is their playground. with an underclass who have average existence for their pleasure. Is good society, behaviour etc, for the subjugated whilst elite ignore all morals? Just asking. Do not blindly accept. Philosephise. Pure maths isn't a bad start point but don't forget to prove it from fundamental levels without any assumptions. I found. conversity or alternative states to be quite high up fundamentally. And off/on, binary, exist/ not exist, duplicatable/ unique, group theory, dimensions equating to groups of groups (and higher) are things to peruse. If physical space exists it is in minimum chunks of space rather than a continuum. And time is in distinct moments and not a continual flow. A human mind is a vast collection of consciosnesses. these are small individual 'self awares' which are only self aware when going from off to on for that small blip of experience. But share this with billions of linked consciousnesses. All arranged as groups, subsets, etc. and aware of their position within the whole. so lots of blips moment by moment form patterns which make up cumputational code. probably closer to chinese way of expressing ideas than our western way. Make up a tree of sets, subsets and sub-subsets etc and you can give each member consciousness. then you can evolve any shape within the system you wish. You can even give some groups depth to create 3-d perception amongst these sharing entities. See yet how a virtual world could be constructed? When this system can grow in a limitless way it can create intelligent thought of unthinkable level. Self learning intelligence programs make it become intelligent without limit and a genesis of our world piss-easy. And i used to think Genesis was utter rubbish. But if this were true does not mean the creator is total goodness or has total control of the 'game'. surely something there has to give.......
spam…