By cause I mean the initial singularity, and by effect I mean the forms which it produces. To defend this I give an example of lighting a fire, the very act of doing so incorporates the existence of fire itself. Suppose it did not, then the existence of fire would not be contained in the attribute of the cause, and hence some attribute could only produce attribute of the same extent as proven in an earlier post. From this it is true that the cause could not produce an effect outside its initial margins, and hence the act of lighting a fire could not produce fire in itself. This is preposterous, and so it is proven that the essence of fire is contained in the attribute of its cause.
Recall our definition of a singularity: 'By singularity I mean the infinitely generalized state of a substance, from which infinite forms or particular versions may spring'
From this an interesting result is proven; a cause cannot be known from an effect.
Since we said a cause is the initial singularity and since a singularity produces infinite forms, then by knowing a finite amount of forms one only perceives of a finite portion of the singularity and hence not the total singularity itself. One will deny this and say that through induction we will come to know of the singularity. But if I asked the speaker to define what he means by induction, it would be impossible to accept it as a viable method without extending finity to infinity. Doing so requires preconceived judgement of infinity. Not only does it require this, but it must require preconceived judgement of infinity in the context of the singularity. In essence, it requires preconceived judgement of the singularity beforehand, but we defined this to not be the case. Hence the theorem is proven.
Giving a final example, take the case of the natural numbers. By knowing a few numbers one cannot come to know of all the numbers, which are contained in the singularity of the numerical countable infinite in the appropriate context. In this case however, I argue that we are equipped with the necessary knowledge beforehand. This hints us towards the context of said infinity, and suggests that it must be known to us a priori. How could this be the case if we have not come to know of a physical infinity? The only solution is that the the attribute of the infinity and hence the singularity is not contained in the physical realm and is hence immaterial.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Concerning Doubt
To doubt a given object or structure one questions the metaphysical validity, by that I mean the truth of said object which may be form, singularity, or even God himself. Notice that when me say truth we mean the extent of reality possessed by the object or structure, and as we defined the extent of existence to be contained solely within the attribute we should simply question the extent of attribute of the form or structure.
To make this more clear, the singularity contains more reality than the form so even if one doubts the form the singularity itself cannot be doubted to the same extent. The necessity is also of utmost importance, and since the singularity creates infinite representations of itself or forms, it is of necessary importance for it to exist for its forms to exist. This is not to say that it must, for the singularity of bodies does not need exist - ponder over this thought for a moment if unclear on its significance.
From above it should make itself clear that one can test for the reality of some object or structure by simply doubting it and through the rational faculty of mental reasoning come to conclude on its necessity or attribute. Further, one must not fall under the illusion that the attribute can be ascribed some objective scale isomorphic to the natural numbers or otherwise; separation into finity and infinity is sufficient. Elaborating on this further, only forms exist in finite representation and each singularity exists of an infinity each higher than the other. We need not concern ourself with forms which necessarily exist due to a singularity, but observing the attribute of a singularity is sufficient.
I argue that the necessity of a structure existing is in absolute alignment with its attribute. For we define something to necessarily exist for its products necessarily exist. Hence its product is merely a form of the initial singularity, as we argued before the singularity occupies a higher attribute than the form it produces. In fact the singularity which may produce a singularity occupies a state of greater attribute and hence existence by the same reasoning. (If this remains unclear consult my previous article titled 'Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence')
We come to the last obstacle, doubting God - a necessary obstacle on the path to enlightenment. I shall not describe any new proposition here, or even attempt to prove the nature or existence of God. Simply, when doubting an absolute infinite one must study the necessity of existence as the attribute has already been defined. It is a useful moment to elaborate on our definition of God, not only is he substance infinite in his attributes but furthermore infinite in dimensions of infinity. In other words, I mean the absolute infinite of which existence is an attribute, and henceforth is a fundamental substance to existence itself.
To make this more clear, the singularity contains more reality than the form so even if one doubts the form the singularity itself cannot be doubted to the same extent. The necessity is also of utmost importance, and since the singularity creates infinite representations of itself or forms, it is of necessary importance for it to exist for its forms to exist. This is not to say that it must, for the singularity of bodies does not need exist - ponder over this thought for a moment if unclear on its significance.
From above it should make itself clear that one can test for the reality of some object or structure by simply doubting it and through the rational faculty of mental reasoning come to conclude on its necessity or attribute. Further, one must not fall under the illusion that the attribute can be ascribed some objective scale isomorphic to the natural numbers or otherwise; separation into finity and infinity is sufficient. Elaborating on this further, only forms exist in finite representation and each singularity exists of an infinity each higher than the other. We need not concern ourself with forms which necessarily exist due to a singularity, but observing the attribute of a singularity is sufficient.
I argue that the necessity of a structure existing is in absolute alignment with its attribute. For we define something to necessarily exist for its products necessarily exist. Hence its product is merely a form of the initial singularity, as we argued before the singularity occupies a higher attribute than the form it produces. In fact the singularity which may produce a singularity occupies a state of greater attribute and hence existence by the same reasoning. (If this remains unclear consult my previous article titled 'Preliminaries for Propositions on the Nature of Existence')
We come to the last obstacle, doubting God - a necessary obstacle on the path to enlightenment. I shall not describe any new proposition here, or even attempt to prove the nature or existence of God. Simply, when doubting an absolute infinite one must study the necessity of existence as the attribute has already been defined. It is a useful moment to elaborate on our definition of God, not only is he substance infinite in his attributes but furthermore infinite in dimensions of infinity. In other words, I mean the absolute infinite of which existence is an attribute, and henceforth is a fundamental substance to existence itself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)