Home | February 24, 2006
Hi Joan,
Thanks for your letter
Regarding your comments / question, some clarifications are in order
First, it is important to distinguish between the universe, the known universe, and the empirically known universe. The universe is, simply, all that there is. Is there a distinction between the universe and the known universe? The answer to this question depends on degree of detail and on mode or kind of knowing. In the sense that I have a conception of all that there is (the universe) and that I know without doubt that there is a universe, I know the universe. This at once shows that the distinction between the known universe and the conceptions of my mind is not absolute. Of course, I do not see the universe (in its entirety) and I do not know it in full detail (in any sense…) The empirically known universe is what we see with our eyes, enhanced by instruments, and interpreted in terms of our conceptual understanding of that (empirically known) phase. When it is remembered that a percept is a form of concept (I see a table, not a mere collection of surfaces and legs and connectors) and that theory (the basis of interpretation) is conceptual, any absolute distinction between the known universe and the empirically known universe also breaks down. There is a distinction but it is of course practical – not absolute or final
Although common sense seems to say, ‘tortoises all the way,’ this is but one experience of common sense. We have so many experiences of common sense going wrong (thus science and philosophy, thus criticism) that it has become part of common sense to criticize common sense. This may be stated, experience shows that there is invariably some doubt regarding convictions from empirical experience. In other words, in experience we doubt experience; in knowledge we doubt knowledge; at the outset we know neither that doubts will remain eternally nor that they will not; this is, perhaps, and we may find out in the questioning, the way to knowledge. In any case, our best knowledge of the expanding universe of mass and energy[1] that is our knowledge through physics reveals that ‘something from nothing’ contradicts no fundamental law. There was a time when scientists and others referred to a ‘law of conservation of matter.’ However, if we look at the world we see what appear to be mutations of matter all the time. This does not of course show that matter is not conserved but it certainly is no basis for any conservation of matter. Let us think upon this a little more. A brick remains a brick: some matter seems to be conserved. An egg becomes a bird: no reason to suspect conservation of matter here. Along comes Newton. He postulates particles; this postulate enters scientific consciousness and encourages, along with learning in chemistry that was becoming established as a science at the time, the idea of conservation of matter. Mere generalization. What Newton’s laws show: energy is conserved. Enter Einstein and the equivalence of mass and energy. When a cosmos is created (a thought experiment) the energy of the matter is positive, the energy of the gravitational field is negative; if the distribution is right, the two energies cancel
A summary of part of the foregoing is that, from experience we conclude nothing other than the experience itself; experience that an object x has not been seen means only that x has not been seen and not that it does not exist; that something may or may not have been seen or felt to have come from nothing has no bearing at all on whether something from nothing is possible or has occurred or may occur; it is not in the character of experience that general answers may be found in it when it stands by itself; generality derives from concepts that straddle the level of experience
The argument shows that in your visible universe, if you extend it in terms of science, but without any reference to noumenon or imagination, that ‘something from nothing’ is indeed possible
What if one subtracts science? Consider life. Where does life come from? We know, now, that the sperm and the egg do their dance, that their structure results in the growing form but that there is no ‘something from nothing’ as the cells multiply and absorb ‘nutrients,’ as the organs and limbs develop and begin to function[2]. The thrust is that without science, however, the phenomenon of new life cries out ‘something from nothing’ within your visible experience. That is, if the science of the last few centuries is not allowed into consideration, the phenomenon of life cries out ‘here is something from nothing.’ On the other hand, if science is allowed, then, even though questions about origins remain, life may be understood as a conservation phenomenon, but then it is, as seen above, the fundamental principles of science that cry out ‘something from nothing.’ With or without science, one way or other, something from nothing lies within experience andor its extension. But, ‘nature abhors a vacuum.’ I use that phrase merely as a metaphor in reference to the common sense interpretation of experience – the mind abhors a vacuum as the base of the world; it is only when some such ‘principle of abhorrence’ is superposed on experience that experience is interpreted to conclude that there is no something without something, i.e., that something cannot come from nothing
My arguments regarding the general character of being and the more specific question regarding ‘something from nothing’ (though, perhaps, suggested by the foregoing scientific and common sense concerns) have no connection in reason with the foregoing. The arguments are based in reason: (1.) The void exists (it is the universe minus itself.) (2.) The void is not mere absence of things but it is also the absence of laws, patterns, Gods or whatever (laws and patterns are in the universe.) (3.) The void is more nothing like than even the absence of things (follows from 2.) (4.) If there were prohibitions against the void (nothing) becoming any particular thing then such prohibitions would be laws. 5. But, since there are no laws in the void it must be capable of becoming any particular thing such as a summer day, Joan Elk, Joan’s thought that something cannot come from nothing, the laws of physics of this universe, Jesus Christ rising from the dead, the entire universe (it should be remembered that the truth of these assertions follows in the entire universe but not necessarily in the empirically known universe; it would therefore be a mistake to find this truth in any limited journey)
Without reason, experience is merely particular; without experience, reason is merely abstract-conceptual. Can anything be derived from experience combined with reason? It has often been said (Hume and the entire critical tradition that includes Wittgenstein) that nothing general can be derived in reason from something particular. A scientific law is a generalization and new data may invalidate it. The category of causation has no basis in reason as generalization from observation (Hume was not saying that there is no causation, no induction but only that the attempt to found these categories in logic is mistaken; I have much more to say on this question and the following is elaborated in Journey in Being: there is and can be no universal causation but there must be cosmological systems where quasi-causation and quasi- or partial determinism obtains but even there the causation and determinism cannot be absolute.) But, then, how is it possible to make the derivations of the previous paragraph? Two ways. Actually one way but two examples of the one way and that way is the way in which no true generalization is made. Thus the void is so un-particular that conclusions regarding it are not in any way based on generalization. Secondly, while particular states of the universe may yield no valid generalization, the collection of all possible states of the universe, which can be named and discussed but not specified, is not subject to the same restriction
This is merely the start of the development of the ideas in Journey in Being in their logical (though not intuitive or developmental) progression. For the argument from 1 – 5 shows the universe as a whole to be far less formed than our cosmos and (with a slight extension to the argument) infinitely greater in size than this cosmos. What then is the basis of the being of our cosmos, and what is the relation between being in the cosmos and being in the universe; what is the nature of possibility, what things are possible (any non-contradiction for example,) what is the nature of the apparent limits of this cosmos (including the something from nothing,) what are the implications for the entire tradition of human knowledge and experience, what is the ultimate nature of the identity (the sense over a lifetime that despite often huge changes that one is the same individual) of the individual – and what is the distinction between Anil Mitra, Joan Elk and the universe and is there any ultimate distinction or lack whose experience will be forever off bounds, and what is the reistic basis of such distinction or lack thereof… This, in addition to the development of far more immediate and practical considerations is where ‘Journey in Being’ goes
Now, of course doubt regarding 1 – 5 remains. We may feel disoriented by it by its counterintuitive clarity as does a deer in the beam from headlights: although the beam is illuminating the deer becomes disoriented. So we go back to start and review the logic. We find no errors of logic. I have combed and searched. In fact what we find (this is reviewed in your copy of Journey in Being) is a new conception of LOGIC in which LOGOS is at the core of being; LOGIC, then, is our interpretation of logos; and the classical sense of the meaning of logic as the science or art of argument, as is so beloved of university instructors, and so on is but a special case of the more general (and anticipated in name by Leibniz and Wittgenstein and in form by Plato) meaning of LOGIC. I have reviewed the possibility of confusion of logic and being; but the argument shows that there is no distinction (it is in the halls of academia, in the mind of the logician who is divorced from his or her grounding in being, that logic becomes mere argument and derivation and words.) Still, of course, doubt remains; how can so much be derived from so little? The answer lies in the earlier comments about conclusions not being based on generalization. Doubt continues. The resolution, hinted at in your copy of Journey in Being, lies in the dual resolution of the fundamental questions of epistemology and metaphysics – of knowledge and of being. We in the modern world have been accustomed to what I call the anti-real or ‘flimsy’ concept of knowledge (evolution is just a theory, rejoicing ignorance, mistaking the functionality of doubt for the glory of ignorance) as though it were of some evanescent, ethereal, vanishing, immaterial stuff. We therefore have come, since the enlightenment, to resort to resolution of the problem of epistemology (how knowledge is possible) to then justify the problem of metaphysics: What is (the nature of) being? The resolution is to not bifurcate these problems which are originally part of the same object: mind is immersed in and not separate from being. Kant shows the beginning of the way to resolution by integrating external object and knowledge; of course his approach is based in the flimsy concept referred to above; and his resolution is neither complete nor well founded (it was well founded relative to the common assumptions of his day – that logic, Euclidean Geometry and Newtonian Science were absolute, possessed of universal application.) A much more concrete and definitive dual solution, suggested and undertaken by inadequately executed in the existing version of Journey in Being, of the twin problems of epistemology and metaphysics is undertaken in the upcoming version
It is one of the characteristics of the developments that the most abstract has been reduced to the concrete, the metaphorical to the literal. This is what may result from living in years of doubt, years of making tentative statements: it permits the freedom to find the definitive so lacking from the modern intellectual scene. However the modern scene regards its critical form as supreme and forgets or tends to forget the reflexive nature of all criticism: criticism applies to itself. In other words, radical criticism is doomed from the outset, e.g., any concept of knowledge in which no knowledge is possible is surely a contorted concept of knowledge. However, this picture so beloved of dilettantes because it permits them the feeling of knowledge and wisdom without effort or anxiety, so beloved of university philosophers because it procrastinates the retirement that would be the logical conclusion of seeing the truth, continues on and continues to hold humanity, as far as it is capable of doing so, in a state of arrest. If intellectual dishonesty were a crime it would be only immaturity that would shield modern intellectuals and university professors of philosophy from the charge of mature criminal action
I sometimes think, ‘Surely someone has seen the truth that I have seen?’ Is there some conspiracy of silence, some secret fraternity of those who know but are sworn to silence and secrecy lest the treasured but dangerous truth become common knowledge?
Despite the development of the logic to the core, despite this apical development of my own thought which I have doubted but which I have not been able to topple, I continue to have doubt. It is as though one has climbed Mt. Everest and one asks ‘Is this Mt. Everest upon which I am standing and did I get here by climbing?’ There is set of related approaches to this as follows and regarding which I discuss only one. (As an aside, there is also the personal approach of experience and transformation that is the next phase of Journey in Being but to which I do not here refer)
The approach begins with the question, ‘What is the function of knowledge?’ (…without implication that there is a function or any thought that the designated function is the function or even a function; and, here, I will not get into the nature of ‘function’ that I have discussed in Journey…) Well, the first answer is that the function of knowing is to know; since this appears to be a tautology it ought to be above criticism; however, it is not a tautology because in talking of knowing I refer to what we think we know and in talking of ‘to know’ I use the more formal meaning of validated knowledge. The tautology is merely apparent. This is how we have institutionalized knowledge in our modern world: the purpose of knowledge is to know; it justifies the perpetual academic apparatus. And this leads to the endless cycle of questioning and doubt: ‘Do I really know?’ to what I sometimes refer to as the modern pride in ignorance, the refuge in misguided if not false humility. Humility is not to be glorified. Its role is in balance with pride; just as the role of doubt is so as to know and not for its own glorification – not to permit those who have allowed themselves to be feeble of mind to say ‘I am great in my infirmity of mind.’ I have answered this question in Journey but in this discussion I am not depending on that answer. I am addressing the doubt that remains anyway. Well perhaps as suggested in Evolution and Design the original function of knowledge is not to know but, rather, the function of ‘knowing’ is in action. Then it does not matter that ‘knowing’ is not knowing (the in quotes meaning is the feeling of knowing and the plain version meaning is the traditional one of knowledge that is true; also note that in referring to the original function as in the service of action I am allowing for the knowing function of ‘knowing’ as an intermediate function.) Of course, the suggestion from Evolution and Design, even though it took a distinctive form, is not new for it is similar to the ideas of pragmatism (but is not any kind of pragmatism; pragmatism seeks, in action, the foundation of knowledge; my suggestion is to view knowing in its ultimate form as not capable of foundation in the traditional sense and not requiring any foundation in that sense.) Without the binding of knowledge (and all the contents of mind) and being we remain flimsy, we continue to subscribe to anti-real being (in which our modern system of excuses permits pride,) we remain evanescent, vanishing, infinitesimal… This is the function of faith; this is perhaps the main question that religion addresses and perhaps the binding appeal of religion, perhaps why men and women adhere to the absurd for even though absurd it answers the need for being real and concrete instead flimsy and immaterial. (Traditional faith compounds errors; it seeks concrete being; it seeks the traditional flimsy anti-real knowing as the foundation; it therefore binds men and women to absurdity – the price that is paid for concrete, infinite being in the feeling realm.) So, what I say is that despite doubt regarding my argument (again the thought is not at all new) live as though it were true. What is new is that even though I know my argument is true it is yet still necessary to live as though it is true. This is infinite being that is in no part flimsy, never evanescent, never vanishing. In the end, here, it is necessary to say that in living as though it is true the purpose is to experience being and truth, to approach the possibility of being – not to demonstrate truth or being but to experience truth and being in a way in which there is no need to include doubt or to exclude it
March 4, 2006
Let us go back to the beginning of this discussion of the limits of being – the discussion in items 1 through 5, above. Let A and B be any beings or entities. According to item 5,
A º Æ (the void or absence of being); and B º Æ; therefore A º B
That is, any being is equivalent to any other being, to the absence of being and to all being. This, of course, strains the imagination and common sense. There are many other consequences that similarly strain the common sense and one must ask what use is all this when our immediate reality is nothing like that. Putting the objection that way is the key to understanding. We therefore introduce the concept of the normal. Our world is normal. The world defined by the system I have introduced is the entire world or universe. What has been developed in Journey in Being is an understanding of our immediate world (real) in the entire universe (no less real.) What good is that? (1) Any knowledge of the truth is enabling – ‘spiritually’ (actually; the word is in quotes because I don’t like it very much and I am not here going to get into what it might mean and why the spiritual should be anything over and above the material – it is or may be) and materially (potentially.) (2) The developments in Journey in Being show the actual relevance (consequences) for this (our immediate) world of the understanding of being as a whole
…
What about the remaining doubt regarding the theory of being that originates in the logic (remember that the meaning of logic here is not the traditional meaning and is therefore not subject to any reservations about that traditional meaning)? Is there anything about that theory, robust as it is, that is beyond all doubt? Yes:
1. The THEORY OF BEING is beyond all doubt, and whatever else it may be, a theory of the outer limits of being – of its actuality and its possibility (a result of the theory is that there is no distinction between the actual, the possible, and, in some sense, the necessary and it, therefore, has consequences for the meaning of the terms used in modal logic.) Equivalently, one may define an exclusive sense of metaphysics as the theory of the outer limits of being
2. The next step is to find a theory of the inner limits, i.e. one that we can hold without doubt. Traditionally that is the role of epistemology. However, if we accept the irrevocable character of the fundamental logic (putting aside neurotic doubt) we then find that epistemology = metaphysics and so the entire post-enlightenment tradition is mistaken if it is thought to be a theory of the world. It is only a theory of world on such and such restrictions placed on our ultimate ability to know because we want to have such and such kind of certainty. One thing that that world view omits is that the criteria of validity of different levels of abstraction in knowledge is and should be different and that while the criteria for the most detailed scientific knowledge may be one thing the criteria for being as being (as revealed by the logic) is different. If the philosophers had this insight then to insist on the old ideas would be infinitely limiting. In a sense they work against life. In that sense they would be immoral. Therefore, when they read these thoughts, to continue in their old and archaic views and dress them up as practical and modern they will be immoral. This is one relation between ethics and knowledge
[1] Known equally through empirical means and, in science, through the convictions of our minds, and then confirmed – to some degree – by further experience
[2] I could question ‘something from nothing’ in the origin of form from no form; and if it is argued that there was form already in DNA that pushes the argument one step back – where did the original form come from? And if it is argued that form is not substance the response is that we do not know –at the scientific level– whether the apparent substantiality of being is due to form or substance. The points in parenthesis are observations and not part of the thrust here