Comment: Here's the law

(See in situ)


Here's the law

It has to do with what is, exactly, existence.

If you break down a thing by cutting it in two, and then cut that in two, etc. until you can't cut it anymore, you arrive at the classical notion of the 'atom'.

Assuming said atom, how is it defined? It's position? Well, there may be a 'grid', a 'space time continuum'. This is the theologian's argument for God's existence. I believe that absent direct evidence of such an outside 'grid' we should keep looking.

What about other atoms? Position vectors connecting every atom to every atom? This is the eastern, interconnectedness, cyclical universe idea. Here's the problem: Imagine each atom defines one other atom, and is defined by a third atom. In the end, you have a large circle, perhaps infinite. Nevertheless, this circle, or totality, becomes itself a higher order 'atom' that requires definition. Doh! Back to the starting point.

Let's break it down. What is the alternative to existence? Non-existence. So we have to define existence by defining also non-existence. Non-existence, by definition, cannot be defined. Hmm. However, what if non-existence could be defined by its relationship to existence? What???

It's like this - a thing is what it is, as compared to what it is not. We are comfortable assigning a definition to a thing, saying what it is. What about what it is not?

Well, instead of worrying about placing some other entity in that slot, what if put 'non-existence' there. Look I'm not great at explaining this, but here's how it works:

A thing has defined characteristics, which are connected to how 'non-existence' is perceived when it relates to existence: CHAOS. A thing, described by its connection to chaos, randomness, etc. is that things POTENTIAL.

So an entity, in order to be properly described, must be considered as the union of what it is, and what it could be.

Philosophically, this is the union of its analytical and contingent components. Obviously, analysis can't determine the outcome of the contingent. But when understood as potential, one begins to see the light.

For example, using numbers as units in math, I believe, has led to the error proven by Godel: that mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. I think the operators more closely approximate actual existing 'units'. In fact, I think units are more like linear transformations rather than explicit quantities.

That one reform to mathematics would give it great ammunition to describe the complexities we encounter in modern research.

But there's a political implication. Most central authority and schemes of centralized government - to include all of the vast and confusing philosophical, economic, and historical justifications - rely on analysis. There is an attempt to take a complex dynamic thing (society) or an evolving self-justifying cause (free will and human identity) and bind them to a specific analysis of utility or form. Understanding that analysis, academically, only captures 'half' of the universe is the key to understanding the flaw.

For the Randians: this was also Kant's error, equating analytical reason with all reason and thereby concluding that reason didn't capture real reality. Same process and error as Godel.