An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:23 am

Thank you for responding.

God, I suggest, was emergent and we need to consider what He emerged from (I think).

I'm trying but I only have one simple premise: Nothing is an impossibility.
So lets see if we have an ineffable three dimensional picture which can describe the ineffable. One of the movements which turned Christianity into man made Christendom within society. Was the adoption of the personal Hebrew god. So I’d like to use the ONE as described by Plotinus.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/
a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.8). This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.
What I am thinking is that before God emerged there was no purpose.
From this perspective God is beyond time and space and always was. GOD and I AM. God may be complete but AM is not. Am is a necessity emerging from God but with inexactituded put into its basic laws which guarantee function of the universe is to turn in circles providing its purpose. Rather than god emerging from nothing, nothing or what we perceive as nothing, the six dimensional universe we perceive as three emerges from God..

Where god as ONE exists infinitely as ONE, God as three or the initial three forces which genertate the necessaty of I AM. GOD is “IS” one but also simultaneously EXISTS as “THREE” at a lower level of creation within the ONE
On the other hand something basic about God may have been fundamental.

But this doesn't mean that the fundamental part was purposeful but instead purpose may have evolved from the fundamental part.
Yes, God is fundamental; Creation taking place within God at decreasing lower levels like a ladder is not

Does this make sense so far?
Last edited by Nick_A on Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:32 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:23 am

Yes, God is fundamental; Creation taking place within God at decreasing lower levels like a ladder is not

Does this make sense so far?
Did your thinking evolve or was it complete at birth?

Nick_A
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:42 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:32 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:23 am

Yes, God is fundamental; Creation taking place within God at decreasing lower levels like a ladder is not

Does this make sense so far?
Did your thinking evolve or was it complete at birth?
I was always drawn to questioning. I needed help in allowing me to remember it. Once i saw that remembering didn't come from me I felt gratitude.

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:45 am

If I were sarcastic I might say, "Pick me up and call me stupid."

But if I am not, I might say, "What?"

Nick_A
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:24 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:45 am
If I were sarcastic I might say, "Pick me up and call me stupid."

But if I am not, I might say, "What?"
And you would be right I remember once reading where Simone weil wrote that she was always the same and not like those who ran with the crowd. Yet cheer up. It may get worse. How does humanity fit unto the ide of a conscious universe

You seem like nice enough guy without the compulsioun to conseder philosphy as the means to attack others. So it this ideas appeals to you, look how Jacob Needleman describes the conscious universe

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html

We are used to thinking in terms of seculrism or limited to the earth. Is man so limited that man's meaning and purpose may finally be reveled in terms of the conscious universe and the functions of evolution and involution it maintains?

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:00 am

Where are you going my little one, little one?

Where are you going meow?

Nick_A
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Nick_A » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:15 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:00 am
Where are you going my little one, little one?

Where are you going meow?

I don get it? Are you suspectinb a set up? or a put down which I guess is the norm?

jayjacobus
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by jayjacobus » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:48 am

I give up.

And there goes trouble down the ………………..

commonsense
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by commonsense » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:29 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:48 am
I give up.

And there goes trouble down the ………………..
Wormhole? No.

Rabbit hole? No.

Brain? Maybe.

:wink:

Systematic
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Systematic » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:20 am
If we where to explain everything the basic logic would be so general as to mean anything, hence nothing. The assumptive logic thread proves this, it is rational but ironically pure gibberish at the same time.

At best we all left with seeing forms unfolding from a formless nature, and that is it. The paradox is that the deeper the particular the more generalized and simple it is.

Philosophically I am at a wall.
For the sake of distinction: Let's define Everything Existent as EE. And let's define Everything Non-existent as EN.

EE is in three major categories (as far as I know): Universals, Regular Particulars, and Irregular Particulars. Universals are the realm of discovery by the hard sciences, including physics, geometry, chemistry, nuclear, and sub-nuclear.
Regular Particulars are the realm of discovery by the soft sciences, including biology, psychology, electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, et cetera.

I consider Epistemology itself to be a hard science, though not generally an applied science, due to its apparent universal nature.

Irregular Particulars are too chaotic to be studied, hence the tendency of the human mind to be refocused at a moments notice. (With the exception of mental disorders like schizophrenia).

EN is not the same as Irregular Particulars, since Irregular Particulars actually exist. But they are likewise unknowable.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:04 pm

Systematic wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:20 am
If we where to explain everything the basic logic would be so general as to mean anything, hence nothing. The assumptive logic thread proves this, it is rational but ironically pure gibberish at the same time.

At best we all left with seeing forms unfolding from a formless nature, and that is it. The paradox is that the deeper the particular the more generalized and simple it is.

Philosophically I am at a wall.
For the sake of distinction: Let's define Everything Existent as EE. And let's define Everything Non-existent as EN.

EE is in three major categories (as far as I know): Universals, Regular Particulars, and Irregular Particulars. Universals are the realm of discovery by the hard sciences, including physics, geometry, chemistry, nuclear, and sub-nuclear.
Regular Particulars are the realm of discovery by the soft sciences, including biology, psychology, electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, et

Both are composed of generals and particulars.[/color]



I consider Epistemology itself to be a hard science, though not generally an applied science, due to its apparent universal nature.

Irregular Particulars are too chaotic to be studied, hence the tendency of the human mind to be refocused at a moments notice. (With the exception of mental disorders like schizophrenia).

EN is not the same as Irregular Particulars, since Irregular Particulars actually exist. But they are likewise unknowable.
All generals are composed of particulars.

All particulars are composed of further particulars, thus particulars act as generals.

All particulars are composed of generals.

All generals are composed of generals.


What differentiates particulars from generals is the general is a unified set, while the particulars are many finite parts. Generality is unity. Particulate are many.

Systematic
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Systematic » Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:04 pm
Systematic wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:20 am
If we where to explain everything the basic logic would be so general as to mean anything, hence nothing. The assumptive logic thread proves this, it is rational but ironically pure gibberish at the same time.

At best we all left with seeing forms unfolding from a formless nature, and that is it. The paradox is that the deeper the particular the more generalized and simple it is.

Philosophically I am at a wall.
For the sake of distinction: Let's define Everything Existent as EE. And let's define Everything Non-existent as EN.

EE is in three major categories (as far as I know): Universals, Regular Particulars, and Irregular Particulars. Universals are the realm of discovery by the hard sciences, including physics, geometry, chemistry, nuclear, and sub-nuclear.
Regular Particulars are the realm of discovery by the soft sciences, including biology, psychology, electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, et

Both are composed of generals and particulars.[/color]



I consider Epistemology itself to be a hard science, though not generally an applied science, due to its apparent universal nature.

Irregular Particulars are too chaotic to be studied, hence the tendency of the human mind to be refocused at a moments notice. (With the exception of mental disorders like schizophrenia).

EN is not the same as Irregular Particulars, since Irregular Particulars actually exist. But they are likewise unknowable.
All generals are composed of particulars.

All particulars are composed of further particulars, thus particulars act as generals.

All particulars are composed of generals.

All generals are composed of generals.


What differentiates particulars from generals is the general is a unified set, while the particulars are many finite parts. Generality is unity. Particulate are many.

I am not prepared to debate you with quasi-proofs, but I'm fairly certain. There are a few continua that may serve to help.
The continuum from order to chaos. The continuum from permanent status to temporary status. The universals are considered to be the permanent factors of the particulars—not the general per se. Order and chaos I am assuming, have temporary status excepting the universal factors which seem to have a permanent order and exist in everything. The temporary status order is available to be known as the universals are known, but only if the order is not wholly temporary.

Since some of the order is at least partially temporary, it can change into chaotic form and vice-versa.

General and particular are not opposites. The word "particular" is a general term referring to any one of the components of the universe. The word "universal" is also a general term—defined above. "General" is a term of understanding. It is more opposite of the term "unique" or "identified" than of "particular". That is, at least in philosophy.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:46 pm

Systematic wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:04 pm
Systematic wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:47 pm


For the sake of distinction: Let's define Everything Existent as EE. And let's define Everything Non-existent as EN.

EE is in three major categories (as far as I know): Universals, Regular Particulars, and Irregular Particulars. Universals are the realm of discovery by the hard sciences, including physics, geometry, chemistry, nuclear, and sub-nuclear.
Regular Particulars are the realm of discovery by the soft sciences, including biology, psychology, electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, et

Both are composed of generals and particulars.[/color]



I consider Epistemology itself to be a hard science, though not generally an applied science, due to its apparent universal nature.

Irregular Particulars are too chaotic to be studied, hence the tendency of the human mind to be refocused at a moments notice. (With the exception of mental disorders like schizophrenia).

EN is not the same as Irregular Particulars, since Irregular Particulars actually exist. But they are likewise unknowable.
All generals are composed of particulars.

All particulars are composed of further particulars, thus particulars act as generals.

All particulars are composed of generals.

All generals are composed of generals.


What differentiates particulars from generals is the general is a unified set, while the particulars are many finite parts. Generality is unity. Particulate are many.

I am not prepared to debate you with quasi-proofs, but I'm fairly certain. There are a few continua that may serve to help.
The continuum from order to chaos. The continuum from permanent status to temporary status. The universals are considered to be the permanent factors of the particulars—not the general per se. Order and chaos I am assuming, have temporary status excepting the universal factors which seem to have a permanent order and exist in everything. The temporary status order is available to be known as the universals are known, but only if the order is not wholly temporary.

Since some of the order is at least partially temporary, it can change into chaotic form and vice-versa.

General and particular are not opposites. The word "particular" is a general term referring to any one of the components of the universe. The word "universal" is also a general term—defined above. "General" is a term of understanding. It is more opposite of the term "unique" or "identified" than of "particular". That is, at least in philosophy.

And which philosophy states the above?

Systematic
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Systematic » Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:46 pm
I am not prepared to debate you with quasi-proofs, but I'm fairly certain. There are a few continua that may serve to help.
The continuum from order to chaos. The continuum from permanent status to temporary status. The universals are considered to be the permanent factors of the particulars—not the general per se. Order and chaos I am assuming, have temporary status excepting the universal factors which seem to have a permanent order and exist in everything. The temporary status order is available to be known as the universals are known, but only if the order is not wholly temporary.

Since some of the order is at least partially temporary, it can change into chaotic form and vice-versa.

General and particular are not opposites. The word "particular" is a general term referring to any one of the components of the universe. The word "universal" is also a general term—defined above. "General" is a term of understanding. It is more opposite of the term "unique" or "identified" than of "particular". That is, at least in philosophy.

And which philosophy states the above?
If you're so certain that leveraged functional order is not the way, live chaotically and make chaos. You will be missed. :twisted:

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: An Epistemic Theory of Everything

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 7:01 pm

Systematic wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:46 pm
I am not prepared to debate you with quasi-proofs, but I'm fairly certain. There are a few continua that may serve to help.
The continuum from order to chaos. The continuum from permanent status to temporary status. The universals are considered to be the permanent factors of the particulars—not the general per se. Order and chaos I am assuming, have temporary status excepting the universal factors which seem to have a permanent order and exist in everything. The temporary status order is available to be known as the universals are known, but only if the order is not wholly temporary.

Since some of the order is at least partially temporary, it can change into chaotic form and vice-versa.

General and particular are not opposites. The word "particular" is a general term referring to any one of the components of the universe. The word "universal" is also a general term—defined above. "General" is a term of understanding. It is more opposite of the term "unique" or "identified" than of "particular". That is, at least in philosophy.

And which philosophy states the above?
If you're so certain that leveraged functional order is not the way, live chaotically and make chaos. You will be missed. :twisted:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28554
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28597

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests