Two largely unconnected ideas...

Idea 1.

If I ever get a cat I'm going to name it Schrodinger...

The cat's name will be a way for me to ascertain how nerdy a person is, by whether or not they laugh when I tell them the cat's name.

But for the rest of you. This wiki article will give you a preliminary idea as to what I'm talking about... It will also provide you with the knowledge necessary for contending with those nerdy people when they're having their nerdy conversations about things that you don't even want to know about because you have a life.

So here I go...

It occurs to me that this idea of quantum mechanics, which no one, (least of all me) really understands, may provide us with some evidence for the existence of God.
If the cat in the box is truly both dead and alive until the moment of observation, then it seems that the universe must exist under similar conditions, only collapsing into a state of being when an observer makes that quantum measurement.

If the argument can be made that being necessitates conscious awareness, then the Universe could not have come into existence without first being realized by an observing consciousness.

Higher power = yes.


Idea 2.
Theoretical physics is engaged in a constant search for something called the Unification Theory. Essentially they are looking for the key to the Universe, or an all-encompassing theory that will unite everything we know about physics into one single law of existence. This is the basic idea of string theory. The reason that scientists are so eager to find this unification theory, is that the rules that they've derived themselves, are not universally true. The main problem being that quantum theory is completely incompatible with the laws of relativity. (Hawking discusses this debate in his Brief History of Time). Essentially, Quantum mechanics applies to small stuff, and relativity applies to big stuff. Each field is completely factual, and completely incongruent with the other field... Which is a bit of a problem...

But the point in me bringing this up is that this scientific dilemma seems reminiscent of so many theological and doctrinal issues within Christianity, such as free will and Predestination... Two logically incongruent truths, with both being necessarily true for our faith to really work. (In my opinion anyway...)

Many people have cast Christianity aside based on such necessary yet incompatible ideas. Yet no one (that I'm aware of) has thrown modern science out the window based on all of the paradox surrounding it...

Whether it's science or God, it always comes down to a matter of faith. Faith that there is a higher truth beyond all the heresay and second guessing of mankind. So we keep searching for that truth.

Again, I apologize for this messy string of words. There has been no extensive research conducted on my part concerning either quantum mechanics relativity or consciousness. These are simply some random thoughts I had today and decided to jot down. (I also apologize for all the apologies, I just despise ignorant people pretending as if they know of what they speak when they clearly haven't even given a moment's thought to the subject at hand, and here I find myself writing about subjects which I cannot claim to have researched beyond the depth to which a Wikipedia article will take you. But I suppose this is what blogging is all about...)

So don't hate.

Now I'm going to drink some pineapple juice and get back to my homework... bah...

One Single Thought

If Shakespeare was right, and all the world is a stage, and all the men and women players... Then I like to think of philosophy as the study of that which is behind the curtain.

Few people in the audience care very much what goes on behind that curtain, so long as the play goes smoothly, and touches them emotionally at all the right moments, leaving them in the end with some fleeting sense of satisfaction that their money was well spent... What goes on front stage is that which matters most to these people, because it is clear, tangible and easy to understand. Quite unlike the dimly lit, messy and chaotic backstage world... Many would say "I don't care about all the makeup and lighting techniques, I just came here to be entertained..." Most people are only interested in the finished product, preferring to remain in the dark about the many details of production.

People wonder what I find appealing about philosophy. It's not a matter of studying weird mystical ideas for apologetics reasons or even for curiosity's sake... It is because this life that I have in Christ, is the greatest of the many wonderful gifts that God has given to me, and I simply want to understand what that gift really is.

That is how I worship my Creator.

When I pass behind the curtain, into the darkness and confusion of "the backstage world" I see most clearly the complexity and wonder of human life and the divine power and grace that sustains it.

"Oh he's really lost it this time..."

Yes friends, I'm back to the blog, to once more give voice to my creed of life is meaningless!

So this is what I'm thinking about today...

Perceivable existence is nothing but metaphor and symbolism.

This is the conclusion that I randomly came up with while I was studying for a Calculus test tonight.

For example, math seems to pride itself on being the most fundamental of disciplines, upon which all other scientific studies are based. To explain that statement, it could be said that behind the study of psychology, there are biological principles. But behind those biological principles, there are chemistry principles, and behind those chemical principles are principles of physics. Yet behind physics and everything else is the foundation of mathematics.

Math seems to be what it all boils down to. Yet what is the force and foundation behind math? Math is just a bunch of symbols and figures. But the math itself is not these symbols and figures, it's something far more abstract. It's the rule of the universe, but what IS that? Logic perhaps? More likely logic is simply another form of mathematics...

No, this foundational law of reality is something intangible and unthinkable. Occasionally we choose to label this unknowable force as simply "truth". It makes us sound profound, and also makes us feel better about the unfortunate fact that this alleged "truth" is completely unknown to us, except by the symbols and numbers we use to harness it.

However, contrary to popular belief, providing a label for something in no way implies that we have an understanding of that something. More often it just allows us to toss around lots of meaningless language in our endless attempt to define this thing we call "truth".

It's unknowable. We could all stand to be a little more humble and a little less pretentious in our claims of knowledge. You Christians out there, stop pretending as if you could possibly ever truly know the mind of God. He is an infinite being. You are not. It is as simple as that. Instead, take joy in the fact that God is unknowable. It is our eternal privilege to enjoy this truth of His nature. and it is the nature of God, that is this mysterious metaphysical rule of the Universe which stands behind every other principle. We cannot know this nature, we can only interpret it through symbols and metaphors.

Example: When we say "God is love" or "God is mighty" or "God is good". We run up against the problem that the concepts of love, goodness and strength, are merely symbols of God's nature. Traced back to the derivative meaning, It becomes a redundancy, that goes more like "God is God", or just "God is". Since existence itself derives it's being from God, we cannot accurately ascribe any facet of existence to God without the entire logical progression blowing up in our faces.

It's craziness...

Now I'm kicking myself, because I just wrote a completely aimless blog post, stabbing at so many interesting points... and just threw it out there like so much intellectual vomit... All for the sake of not doing this Calculus homework. Meh...

Philosophy must truly be the deepest form of procrastination ever conceived by man...

And that my friends, is the truth.

Love is all ya need...

Love is life.

Love is pain.

Love is the grotesque beauty of a bloody, broken man stuck up on a cross...

Love is a paradox.

Let me know if you ever figure it out.


Happy vamlumtimes day...

random fyi

It seems my recently shut down parkour blog is back up and running...and jumping, and vaulting and climbing... etc...

dangit. i've gone and lost my identity...

I was sitting at my desk doing calculus problems, and out of the blue, i was suddenly just overwhelmed with horror at the realization that we somehow hold the power to control our own nature.

Some would say that we can't change who we are. But I must believe that we can, if I plan to accept free will as a human possibility.

we can change who we are.
and in fact we do. every conscious decision that a person makes, reshapes him into someone else.

that's terrifying...

What I find to be possibly even more disturbing is this... if who we are, is such a fragile thing that it can be radically altered so easily by a careless decision, then is who we are really anything at all?

As Batman would put it, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
At the time, I was far too caught up in the epic-ness of Batman to realize the sobering truth behind this statement. It seems that as humans, (and Batman) our will is most truly the only thing that does define us.

Suddenly the awareness of my own lack of will-power crashes down on me with the force of a thousand snooze buttons being hit all at once...

dang...

"Whoever has learned that existing as the single individual is the most terrifying thing of all, will not be afraid of saying that it is the greatest." -Soren Kierkegaard

On God...'nstuff...

A critical paper on Descartes' (in my opinion, invalid) argument for the existence of God...

Objection to the Ontological Argument

The purpose of this paper is to present a critique of Descartes’ ontological argument. This argument makes the assertion that a divine being must exist, given that man has within his mind, the concept of such a being. As Descartes states in the Meditations, “I have no choice but to conclude that the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists” (Meditation Three, 40).

The argument may be understood as follows. God is that of which nothing more perfect can be thought, and existence is more perfect than non-existence (Meditations three, 39 and 41). Thus, a God that exists, is necessarily more perfect than a God that does not exist. It follows that if the concept of a perfect, infinite being exists in the mind of man, then it must be preceded by the actuality of God’s being (Meditations three, 39).

The problem arises with the assertion that a God that exists is more perfect than a God that does not exist. Descartes defines nothingness as ”what is at the greatest possible distance from any perfection” (Meditations three, 41). This, however, is a fallacious definition, as existence is not something which can be attributed to, or denied to a being. For example, by no means could one make the claim that there is a God who does not hold the attribute of existence. Such a statement would be self-contradictory. Thus, that which does exist cannot be said to be more, or less perfect than that which does not exist. Such things are incomparable. Since the premise that a God which exists is more perfect than a God which does not, is false, the argument given by Descartes does not provide adequate evidence for the existence of God.

The best thing ever

you know you're a philosophy nerd, if you find this comic remotely funny...
(click on it to enlarge the image to a readable size.)

a shamefully easy assignment

This is such a sad little excuse for a philosophy paper that I'm kind of ashamed to post it. But this is my first paper for the modern class. It's basically a response paper on Descartes' ever popular argument for self-existence.

A Critique of The Cogito

The purpose of this paper is to present a critique of the Cartesian argument for existence, which states “I am, I exist is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind” (Meditation Two, 30). In his Meditations On First Philosophy, Descartes offers this argument for self-existence, that the very act of contemplating one’s own existence, is itself proof of that existence, or in its better known phrasing, “I think, therefore I am” (Meditation Two, 30).

This argument has several plausible fallacies, but the particular one that I will consider here is the fallacy of begging the question, or circular reasoning. In an argument that is begging the question, the truth value of the argument is invalidated by the fact that the conclusion is already assumed within the premise. The premise of the Cogito argument is the “I think” statement. However, this statement can only be valid if the argument’s conclusion is assumed to be true. For a being to have the property of thinking, it must first have the property of existence. This is a self-evident truth which seems to invalidate Descartes’ argument. Since a statement cannot be made about a thing without implying that thing’s existence, any argument of this nature must invariably beg the question. A more complete syllogistic presentation of the Cogito argument might be “I exist, therefore I think. I think, therefore I exist. Yet this reasoning is clearly circular and does not provide a valid conclusion. Thus the Cogito is an invalid argument for self-existence.

and that's my new philosophy...

Truth?

ahh...academia... how it doth kindle the flames of imagination...

This semester I'm taking two philosophy classes, History of Modern Philosophy, and Existentialism. Both of these should prove to be incredibly fun and enriching. Frankly, after a year studying at CIU with Dr. Gentry, I find no intimidation whatsoever in the thought of writing papers for what might normally be considered difficult classes. ha.

I'm currently reading from Descartes, and Kierkegaard. As such, my mind has awakened from it's Christmas dormancy... So I must write, lest my brain explode. Forgive me, as my writing method is a somewhat "stream of consciousness" style. I simply begin with a vague concept and see where it takes me. But anywhoo...

the more I understand how things are, the more I realize that I know nothing. That in fact, on a certain level, nothing can truly be known. The best mankind can achieve is an educated guess about anything. That's the paradox of non-omniscience. Unless we know everything, we most truly cannot know anything. Because every supposition rests on another supposition, which rests on another... Behind every established fact, their is always a question.

If that wasn't enough to convince you, then simply try your best to consider something simple, like a rock. You may know facts of what kind of minerals are in the rock, what the rock looks like, or maybe even what it tastes like, though why anyone would even wonder what a rock tastes like seems questionable to me... You can know any number of facts about this rock. You could make it your life's goal to study this rock, and get up every morning and look at it all day, and count the specks on it, and memorize the pattern...and even see how it tastes with other non edible objects if you want... Yet for all your laborious study of this rock, you can't know the rock itself, only facts ABOUT the rock. To truly know the rock, you would have to have every piece of information concerning the rock, and each of the atoms that forms the rock, their history, the path that the atoms' electrons take as they fly around... everything. You would then have to implement all of this knowledge into one moment of time and one single focused thought. Then, for that one moment, you would most truly know that rock.
For obvious reasons, this is humanly impossible. And thus, nothing can truly be known. So don't go around licking rocks because I can guarantee that it will probably not help your situation in any way.

So I've been thinking tonight about truth. What is it? That ultimate intellectual goal that we all strive after? God's Word? Most assuredly yes... The Bible is truth. Yet it is not the source of all truth, nor is it the extent of all truth. The truth of Scripture proceeds from God, who is himself the source of all truth, as he is the source of all that is.

I suppose that when we call something "truth" it's just a linguistic method by which we denote that something carries a particular aspect of God's nature. I think then, that any "established truth", might be considered for our purposes, to be an extension of God's being, rather than simply derivative of God's being. in other words, it is not true to say that all truth proceeds from God. It could more accurately be put, that God is truth.

Curses...

Whenever I stumble on an idea that strikes me as somewhat profound, it always leads me to something which is already well established and quite obvious. Though I suppose that fact just goes to prove my point. That which we call discovery is merely the act of us viewing God from a different angle, by which we perceive a particular facet of his being, and this we label "truth."

...Not knowing how else to end this excessively long post, I think I'll just harness the limitless power that Calvin and Hobbes quotation offers...

"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little pratice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

This entire blog... summed up in two sentences.
Brilliant.

I <3 Kierkegaard.
a lot.
forreals.

(more on that later)

Bwahaha.... Why is this so funny?

The Incoherent Musings of a Desperate Procrastinator

So I was lying on my bed today...putting off homework, when I decided that existence is movement. This idea is foundational to parkour philosophy, and now it seems to be true in a much broader sense as well. Everything moves. The universe is constantly expanding. Nothing escapes movement from a purely physical perspective. Furthermore, time itself necessitates movement, as movement necessitates time. The two are mutually codependent. If all movement suddenly ceased, time would not continue, until something somewhere moved again.

Is time necessary for existence then? Does an absolute lack of movement invariably result in nonexistence?...

Perhaps... Although I don't know if that really makes sense...

But now I have to go do homework....