Philosophy has two main problems. Any philosophy capable of solving them must in fact form a theory of everything…of explaining why something exists rather than nothing, and why it exists in the way that it does.
Ontological Mathematics is the only philosophy in history which has satisfactorily answered the question of existence while not falling foul of these two traps, or fallacies, of logic. It forms the basis of a complete theory of everything, even explaining things about science and physics which science cannot and never will while completely incorporating all empirical findings of science.
Discuss with friends on WordPress:
and join the group Classical Illuminism on FaceBook:
From my experience of research having worked in Universities in the UK is that sciences’ Modus Oporandi is it has a theory first, and then twists the results to fit the theory. I have seen it with my own eyes with Phd students.
Rather that working from reason. Why existence exists and building experiments to work ontologically, with reality and then formulating theories based on truth they prefer the above way.
Like Joe said its like mysticism. If they can’t fit a square peg in a round hole they come up with ridiculous ideas like randomness. And eventually with highly, highly complex theories (that the majority are so confounded by they then declare “eureka” we believe we have a solution). It’s a sawing the edges off the square to fit the round hole !
This is the opposite of the principle of sufficient reason. Why would the universe take the most complicated route just so scientists can be right. It goes against the second law of thermodynamics where a closed system will exude entropy until it becomes too complex and then reorganises as a higher level to find balance, BUT STILL at its SIMPLEST available route and structure to take the extra input.
Nothing exists eternally. i.e the “thing” nothing exists eternally. Nothing requires nothing to exist to sustain itself.
What we should maybe say is that nothing has everything in it to be something. i.e the circling. At the moment of nothing there is just a pure circle. Not until there is a thought will frequencies switch on the fourier transform.
0 frequency gives no material reality. Zero is self eternal. Circling is base energy at net zero.
So something = nothing. But nothing has potential to be. something is this: 1 +-1 =0, 2 +-2 = 0. 3 + -3 =0 etc but they are all different nothings; there is potential in the difference, but existence exists as all forms of nothing.
For example say a Code 1,1,1,-3,2,-6,-7 etc etc……………….. may give an expression of some form of matter. The frequency combinations are infinite, we have just got a few mapped down in our periodic tables.
The different circle sizes and patterns are what create the different frequencies:
See here by Better Explained and his video “Fourier Transform Intuition”.
The reason why scientific materialists get so mad about it Joe is that they have dedicated their lives and made a lot of money out of it.
Maintaining the status quo is maintainig their cash cow. Literally their living. Jeez a lot of these scientists are making it up as they go along, and are getting public grants and wasting money and living lives of richness all based on untruths. That’s why. They are frauds and it needs to stop!
I saw a comment on this on youtube, were someone asked Joe, have you abandoned Climate Science? This is FUCKING Climate Science!!!!!!!
Search the word “ONTOLOGY” Jeez.
Cognitive dissonance can be such a bitch. Fuck it, why is my whole life a lie? No really? No reality is all about matter?
No, it’s because of God, you butt fucker you. But hang on, no its randomness, ah…. ha no its a fucking completely irrationally complex theory instead. Why does my brain hurt? Ugh there must be a solution……..
Here it is:
1) Existence Exists.
Mash it up:
Joe, It was never meant to be easy:
I will get you home my friend. Don’t you ever worry about that.
Observe. Experiment. Test the results repeatedly. Find out why. Verify. Conclude. Present your findings without bias or personal gain or narrative. That is real science.
I’d love to find out the person responsible for taking TOA fluxes and claiming that is “radiative forcing” so I can slap him repeatedly until his remaining brain cells have evicted stupid from them.
Climate science options:
1. Lie and get rich doing it.
2. Be honest and poor.
CD I hope Joe replies to your comment, as you have hit the nail on the head. Well said brother. If people just tried to get the gist of what you said, the world would be a better place. Bravo.
Charging station queue in China
Half of China doesn’t even have power. I heard they literally cut the nation in half one side has power the other side doesn’t.
My question: scientific materialism says the universe is random, and you say that is not a proper answer. I agree. But you say the universe is nothing. This seems like a parallel statement. What is lacking from “the universe is random” but is answered by “the universe is nothing?” Also I like the yeah yeah yeahs song I will listen to more of them
That’s great Q Nepal I should do a vid on it.
That would be very cool
Ok just finished I’ll post it in 30 minutes.
That was incredibly quick, wow. Will give it a watch.
I hesitate to say that I disagree. Here’s why:
Existence means what is, and so existence MUST be what is without question. There is no such thing as nothing, because what we perceive as nothing IS, in fact, SOMETHING. Otherwise we could not logically designate it with a label.
By uttering or otherwise signifying the concept of “nothing”, we have, in fact, given perceptual birth to something called “nothing”.
So, basically, my position is to start with the idea of something FIRST, and then categorize nothing as SOMEthing, because NOthing cannot exist, and since existence is ALL there is, NOthing MUST be SOMEthing.
Now this SOMEthing shapes to human limitations of perception, which seems to have a preferred structure that makes the most sense, since we are all sensing types. I am a “sensing type”, and this is how I have arrived at my rational approach to existence. (^_^)
That being said, I think (if I recall correctly) I tested INTJ, because I seem to remember the person who evaluated my answers said that my “type” was around 1% of the population.