Thursday, November 28, 2013

An Objective Basis and Criterion of Morality

In this blog I will consider morality apart from formal religion, religious texts and God.  This article is not meant to work as the say all end all.  The purpose is to provide a simple rational basis of morality that is observer independent.  It is rational to assume an objective basis of morality that does not resolve to opinions, personal judgments, emotions, personal intentions, codes, rules, foreseeable consequences, outcome, yields, religious texts, laws, etc.   

There is an aspect of ethics that is observer independent. You will be surprised how cold hard reason yields the objectivity of morality. The fact that the world has substantially lost it's understanding and application of objective morality condemns it and demonstrates that she has become more and more selfish.  For the objectiveness of morality is rooted in the other i.e. the objective human target object who undergoes a change effect induced by a human mediator.

Morality/Ethics


Ethics also known as morality is a study of human actions usually narrowed down to what are called intentional actions.  Ethics seeks to apply critical thinking and rational analysis in a study of intentional actions.  The study stems from ratio, or rational thought. Humans have the singular ability to think rationally, and this is why and how they are able to isolate human actions in a universal analysis that subsumes all history so as to determine whether a mode of action is rational or irrational.  The rational analysis is applied to a pre-defined context, namely, pre-defined humans who are related by blood, physically connected, and in dynamic relations.

An action refers to a concept that resolves to a relational mode between two or more objects.  In context to ethics/morality, the concept resolves to a intentional relational mode between a minimum of a single mediator and a single target where the mediator and target is/are a human(s).  A mediator performs an intentional action that inherently directed toward a target.  The mediator and target, in this context, need not come into surface-to-surface contact as in the case of a rape.  For example in an analysis of the human action labelled 'grand theft' the mediators who perform the grand theft may never come in physical contact with the targets they harm, namely, the owners of the stolen items. Action is modified by 'intentional' to indicate that the action is known to be performed by the agent and that it is performed for a some purpose (detached from an analysis of the action 'itself').

A human is able to isolate a human action in a hypothetical manner and rigorously analyze that action so as to determine whether that action, which necessarily invokes two or more human mediators and targets qualifies as rational or irrational.  In context to ethics rational is a synonym for moral and irrational is a synonym for immoral.  The critical analysis is focused on the objective target connected to the objective mediator who performs a mode of relational action.

  
An act performed by a human is consummated and now we apply cold hard reason to determine whether or not that action was rational or irrational.  Humans have the unique ability to reason about reality and the reality of the present is that humans are always performing actions which are inherently connected to one another.  Mediators impart causal actions on a target, targets undergo change effect for the duration of the action, and the outcome can also induce a chain of change effects rooted in personal identities.  


Since real human actions are supposed in morality it is possible to kill the observer in a diagnostic so as to determine whether or not this action is rational or irrational.  To deny this statement would be to shoot oneself in the foot and whitewash all critical thinking and rational analysis along with all science, philosophy, physics, biology, etc.     

An Objective Basis and Criterion of Morality


An intentional action is inseparable from a target in spite of opinion, personal intent, circumstance, consequences, outcomes, laws, codes, morals, texts, etc..  The moral agent is a mediator (Human Object A) who imparts a causal action on a target (Human Object B).  The target undergoes change effect for the duration of the dynamic relation.  The action is supposed to be consummated and is rationally analyzed.  

Lets take the example of rape.  A mediator (Male, object A, in his forties) performs a manner of causal action on a target (Female, object B, in her teens).  The mode of the relational action is described as sexual assault.  Now we kill the observer and apart from opinions, personal intent, judgments, consequences, outcomes, rules, codes, laws, religious texts, etc. WE ask:

Is this mode or relational action between two humans rational or is it irrational?  Is it rational for a male to sexually assault a female? Yes or no.  Any rational individual ineligible for the insane asylum would answer that this mode of relational action is irrational.  Fine.  Now why?  What is the single objective criterion that can be applied to all modes of intentional human actions so as to determine whether they qualify as rational or irrational?  


Harm.  The answer is harm.  If the action of the mediator directly harms the target that action is irrational, insane, immoral, etc.  The rapist imparts a causal action on the human target who undergoes a harmful change effect.  The harmful change effect undergone by the female child who was raped by a 40 year old male does not depend on my opinion, your opinion, and all the opinions of all humans in all history.  The mode of relational action labelled rape ALWAYS harms the target in spite of opinions, in spite of religious texts, in spite of rules, codes, purposes, personal judgments, laws, etc.  Even if the rape was committed in a time that rape was legal and considered to be a good, the act the rape (when rationally analysed in isolation) directly harms the target.   I do not think that anyone can even possibly argue in a sincere manner against this rationale.
Harm is a sort of moniker or place holder or abstract concept nesting any sort of deprivation or damage imaginable whether physical, psychological, emotional, vital, monetary, property, etc. pending the human act in question. Example: Murder directly deprives the target of his or her life.  A devil's advocate once presented to me the scenario that a consensual act of sex between virgins imparts harm to the sexual organ of the female target and makes her bleed. This is an indirect and unintended consequence of the consensual act of sex.  On the other hand a vaginal mutilation performed by a mediator toward a female target would qualify as imparting direct harm to the female sex organ as would a rape directed toward a virgin.  This is a conceptual issue.  The problems of human actions are solved using the brain, detached from sensation and perception.   

If you are not convinced this
 weave of thought is rational I suggest you volunteer your 18 year old daughter to be kidnapped, beaten, sold, drugged, raped and then murdered so that you can realize that your opinion, my opinion, the rapist's opinion, the judge's opinion and all opinions of all humans who have ever lived have nothing to do with the harm directed at an objective target by the mediator. Harmful change effect rooted in the target human of a relational action is in this context observer independent.  The harm or lack thereof directed at the objective target of a human action in question is an objective basis of morality detached from all observers even God.  God cannot change the fact that the kidnap, beating, selling, drugging, rape, dismembering and murder directly harms the target victim.  Nor can the opinions and judgments of history.  This is a conceptual issue resolved by the mind apart from sensation, perceptions, etc.           

Does the specific mode of action directly harm the target or does it not?  It is as simple as that.  There is no question that other bases of morality are subjective for example personal intent and a judgement of foreseeable consequences.  Why the male mediator knowingly chooses to rape the under aged female target and what he foresaw to get out of that action is subjective.  These aspects amounts to his personal opinion.  But in critical thinking/rational analysis we say WHO CARES?  His personal opinion and the personal opinions of all the humans of history does not change the fact that the action in question directly harms the target and thus is irrational, immoral, insane, etc.

This analysis is objective, observer independent and detached even from God.  Anyone who thinks that morality resolve to rules, opinions, emotions, feelings, laws, personal judgments, religious texts, or what mom said must be out mind because the reality is that human actions performed by mediators can possibly inflict direct harm on targets.  It happens ALL the time.  Welcome to the real world.  Human are directly harming humans in relational actions. This is why there are judicial branches of governments.  If there were no humans directly or indirectly harming humans and if all humans directly and indirectly helped all humans always . . . law-enforcing governments would be out of work.  That is the reality. So if you are interested in taking down the government you can start by applying the objective bases and criteria of morality.  


In reality no one cares what your OPINION is.  The victim of the kidnapping, beating, and rape does not care what anyone's opinion is on the matter.  The fact is the assailant directed harm to her person, and she knows more than all that the assailant's action is immoral. I hate to even say this, but I say it for my critics:  Even if the victim of rape happened to enjoy being raped this DOES NOT change the fact that the victim is directly harmed or undergoes harmful change effect induced by the mediator of this most irrational of actions.  In a matter of twenty four hours, she could even have a new life growing in her womb without a father and resources.  And it is easy to see the chain of consequences.  And one can of course develop a detailed explanation of WHY the rape directly harms the target victim in spite of everything.  

Those who deny an objectivity of human actions or deny that all human actions can be rationally diagnosed are insane.  And those who teach that there is no objective basis and criterion of morality are actually harming their audiences whether they know it or not and in spite of their ulterior motives.

A List of Human Actions of which the Mediator directly harms the Target

    
So now we run down the list of possible human actions and we ask does this supposed human action performed by a mediator or mediators directly harm a target or targets, or does it not?

Slavery (narrowly defined not to include indentured servitude)

Sexual Slavery
Trafficking humans
Murder
Rape
Mutilation of any body part imaginable

Kidnapping
Grand Theft
Abortion
Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing
Fraud

Bank Heist
Child Pornography
Bombing Civilians
Destroying Property
Lying
Stealing
Helping yourself to your neighbor's wife
Severely drugging another . . . etc.


Are the targets involved directly harmed by these hypothetical relational actions consummated by a mediator or mediators? Yes or no?  Why or why not?  If yes they are irrational and immoral.  If no they are possibly rational and moral (but one must also analyze intent and consequence do these directly harm targets).  And one can develop ethics by attempting to answer why 'rape' or any other deliberate human action directly harms or helps an objective target. Opinions, rules, codes, judgments, texts, intentions, purposes, goals, circumstances, consequences, the whims of the times, etc. do not determine whether or not the targets were directly harmed by the mediator imparting the relational action.  


Opinions do not change the fact that slaves where harmed in connection to their owners.  No one or no idea can change the fact that a target is harmed in this mode of action.  I repeat no one or no opinion.  The harm directly imparted by the mediator to the target is effectually rooted in the objective target who has a pre-defined shape and a life.  Morals are determined by the mode of dynamic relations between living human mediators and living human targets. The female victims of human trafficking and sexual slavery are harmed regardless of opinion.  And their lives are ruined whether you care about morality or not.  And it DOES NOT matter WHEN this mode of relational action was performed.  The target women are harmed by mediators performing kidnapping, trafficking, drugging, and raping whenever these relational actions are performed, whether today or 5000 years ago.  

Just because it was the opinion of most of the past human family that slavery was 'o.k.' does not change the FACT that the slaves were directly harmed in that type of relation.  A slave owner's or society's ignorance or lack thereof, care or lack thereof, sincerity or lack thereof does not change the fact that slaves were directly harmed in this relational mode of action.  Morals are rooted in the other . . . in the target who is directly harmed or not harmed BECAUSE of a mediator.  Our fathers were guilty of status-quo bias and a host of other biases until a few rational persons stood up to fight the the harmful relations consummated in slavery and slave trade.  And they, through hard thankless work won a victory, not first for God, or even for rationale, but for the objective victims who were harmed and their children.

Can suicide be rationally analyzed?  Of course.  Suicide is a mode of relational action where the same human . . . acts as mediator and as target.  A human imparts a directly harmful causal action to himself.  He is the mediator and the target of the action in question. Suicide, isolated from personal intent and consequences, is an irrational act.  The person performing a suicide directly harms a target who is none other than himself and as a consequence he possibly imparts harmful change effects on those who are intimately related to him whether by blood, agreement, or friendship.  But these are consequences of his actions and they have nothing to do with the fact that he induced a direct harmful relation to a target.  It doesn't matter that the target is the same as the mediator.  A moral agent can possibly consummate actions directed to himself, e.g. the rational/moral actions of eating, sleeping, washing as well as the irrational/immoral action of masturbation.

Does self-defense directly harm a target?  The answer is no.  The mode of relational action called self-defense directly saves an innocent target or targets.  A mediator performs a causal action that directly repels an irrational assault directed to harm self or others. Hopefully, the repellent's act directly saves a target(s).  It does NOT harm a target(s).  Thus the act of self-defense isolated from all subjective considerations, is rational or moral. One has to impartially penetrate the specific relational mode in question.

In conclusion those human actions that directly harm an objective human target are irrational and in context to ethics:  immoral.  No person or idea can possibly change the reality that another was directly harmed by a mediator in a relational action.  This analysis is rational and firmly rooted in reality.

The ideas presented in this article are a basic understanding of morality with the purpose of establishing the objectivity of morality. There are other bases of morality but to analyze these was not my intent.  Avoiding all actions that directly harm a target is a minimum requirement for those who care to live a moral life.  


But remember there is no limit to actions that directly help a target or targets.  And this is one of the purposes of morality/ethics so as to enlighten individuals so as to confirm them to help others as much as possible.

And so I end with my personal favorite expression of morality taken from the Mother character in Terrence Malick's film called Tree of Life:

Help each other . . .
Love everyone

Every leaf
Every ray of light
Forgive. 

See also:

The Two Fundamental Categories of Ethics

A Grand Moral Dilemma from the Film Sunshine (2007)

Subject-Object Relations in Human Actions

A Brief Critique of Consequentialism

Monday, November 25, 2013

List of Cognitive Biases and Informal Fallacies

Identifying biases and informal fallacies are key concepts in critical thinking and rational analysis. There are a couple of excellent lists on Wikipedia. What I want to do is just post of few of my favorites for quick reference.

Biases

Anchoring or Focalism: The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions. The tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.

Attentional Bias: the tendency to pay attention to emotionally dominant stimuli in one's environment and to neglect relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.

Availability Cascade: A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").

Backfiring Effect: People reacting to dis-confirming evidence, rationale, etc. by strengthening their beliefs.

Bandwagon Effect, Herd Behavior, Social Media Bias: The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.

Belief Bias: An effect where someone's evaluation of the rational strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.

Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Congruence Bias: The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses. (in physics relativity and nebular hypothesis are guilty of this)

Conservatism (Bayesian): The tendency to insufficiently revise one's beliefs when presented with better assumptions, explanations, evidences, etc.

Curse of Knowledge: When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people. (Note Ecclesiastes 1:18: For with great wisdom comes great frustration; whoever increases his knowledge merely increases his heartache.

Empathy Gap: The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.

Framing Effect: Drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how or by whom that information is presented.


Hard Easy Effect: Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough.

Illusory Correlation: inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.

Irrational Escalation: The phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.

Ludic Fallacy: The misuse of games to model real-life situations. (computer simulations in nebular hypothesis and genetics may come close to this fallacy)

Observer Frequency Effect: When a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it. (This is why in science one must 'kill the observer')

Omission Bias: The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).

Pro-Innovation Bias: The tendency to reflect an excessive optimism towards an invention/innovation's usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify limitations and weaknesses or address the possibility of failure. (Modern culture is guilty of this bias)

Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.

Status Quo Bias: The tendency to like things to stay relatively the same.

Subjective Validation: Perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.

Illusion of Truth Effect: People are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.

Informal Fallacies

Argument from Ignorance:  (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense): cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Argument from Repetition:  (argumentum ad nauseam) signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Begging the Question:  (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: I need not justify or prove my claim, you must prove or justify it is false or irrational.

Circular Reasoning:  when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Circular Consequence:  where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Etymological Fallacy:  which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.

Fallacy of Compositions: assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

Fallacy of Many Questions:  (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

False Attribution:  an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Fallacy of Quoting Out of Context:  (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning

Hedging:  using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.



Mind Projection Fallacy:  when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.

Reification: (hypostatization) a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.

Cherry Picking:  (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

False Analogy (argument from analogy): in which the analogy is poorly suited.

Continuum Fallacy(fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy):  improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Shotgun Argumentation:  the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.

Proof by Verbiosity: (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.

Red Herring:  a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.

Hasty Generalization: (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) basing a broad conclusion on a small sample of an originally proposed argument.

Argumentum ad baculum: (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat):  an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.

Argumentum ad populum: (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

Straw Man:  an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Appeal to Authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it

Equivocation: the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)

False Dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy): two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.


sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Cycles of Noah (Part II of Noah Series)

When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. He named him Noah, saying, “This one will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the LORD has cursed.” Lamech lived 595 years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. The entire lifetime of Lamech was 777 years, and then he died.

Noah was a son of 500 years, and he had begotten Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Gen 5:28-32, NET Bible)

These are the last verses of the mini-book or list of Adam’s lineage via Seth. Chapter 5 of Genesis is a genealogy.  I suppose that is was originally inscribed during the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs. Long after the Flood it was eventually assumed to what we know today as Genesis, or Bereshit or Torah pending your tradition. This original form of the genealogical list was probably similar to the genealogical table Abraham recovered when he was sent to Egypt on account of the famine. Blessed Anne describes this genealogical table:

I also saw Abraham with Sara in Egypt. He went thither in obedience to a command from God; first, on account of the famine; and, secondly, to take possession of a treasure which had been carried there by one of Sara’s relatives. The treasure consisted of triangular pieces of gold strung together to form a genealogical table of the children of Noah, and especially of Shem down to Abrahams own time. It had been taken into Egypt by a daughter of Sara’s maternal aunt, who had gone thither with a pastoral tribe, some of Jobs lateral descendants, who afterward degenerated into a wild state. She had there hired herself as a servant. She had stolen that treasure as later on Rachel did the gods of Laban. The genealogical table was made like the scales of a balance hanging on cords. The latter consisted of small triangular pieces strung together, and from them depended single collateral strings. On the gold pieces were figures and letters denoting Noah's, and especially Shem's descendants. When the cords were let down, the various pieces all lay together in the dish. I heard, but I have forgotten, the number of shekels (so the sum is called) to which the whole amounted.
This family register had fallen into the hands of Pharaoh and the priests. They made on it various reckonings connected with their own unending chronological calculations, but they never rightly understood it.(Mysteries of the Old Testament)

Most if not all the modern English translations of the Bible have the Hebrew word transliterated ‘shanah’ translated as years, e.g. When Lamech lived 182 years he had a son. A shaneh refers to a concept. The concept could be defined as a temporal revolution or change in lieu of an object's original location or condition. A shaneh refers to a cycle of time. A shaneh is a time metric, a metric of motion. This time metric was defined by the antediluvian Patriarchs. For example, once Adam hit the ground he may have eventually conceived a time metric to help organize his family’s life and not lose track of his days. Adam may have arbitrarily established a temporal cycle or he may have defined it based on a cycle of nature such as three new moons. Who is to say? 


The point is that their antediluvian time metric was not the same as our modern time metrics. We have decided to define our year as roughly 365 days based on our refined astronomical understandings and calculations. Most the entire world has agreed upon this quantity and applies it to their lives. Yet Adam and the antediluvian Fathers likely did not understood the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or the Earth’s axial tilt in relation to the Sun.  They had no conception of a solar year or sidereal year and there is no reason to think that their shaneh equaled 365 days, especially in light of the quantities modifying the shanah.

There is nothing mystical, magical or mythic in the numbers. The mystique is in how the antediluvian Fathers defined their shanah. I have no manner of knowing for certain so I assume one shaneh equals somewhere between 84 and 90 days.  
I suppose that in this antediluvian context, a shaneh was defined roughly as a duration of three new moons (3 cycles on average of 29.530589 days), or a duration of twelve sevens (84 days).  Every 84 days or every 4th new moon was a shaneh.  This is my rational solution to the perennial problem of the antediluvian patriarchs so called ‘years’. A better translation could be ‘cycles’ and from here on out I will translate ‘cycles’ in place of the Hebrew ‘shanah'.    

The other interpretations of this word have been to my mind unsatisfactory. The interpretation that supposes a shaneh equals 365 days is irrational since assuming Faith in the veracity of the Sacred Text, Adam would in reality have lived for 930 solar/sidereal years. That is clearly out of proportion. The other interpretation I've seen supposes the shanah refer to the years of influence a Patriarch had in the world.  This contradicts the Script since the number of shanah is predicated on the life of a person or in a genitive relation to the individual, e.g.



The entire lifetime of Adam was 930 cycles, and then he died. (Gen 5:5)
In the six hundredth cycle of Noah’s life . . . (Gen 7:11)

An advantage to my interpretation is that it takes the myth, magic and mysticism out of these numbers. So now applying my interpretation to the verses about Lamech and Noah I will round to 87 days:


When Lamech had lived 182 cycles, he had a son.

182 cycles times 87 days per cycle equals 15834 days

15834 days divided by 365 days per solar/sidereal year equals about 43 years.

According to my system Lamech was about 43 solar years old when he had Noah.

Lamech lived 595 cycles after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. The entire lifetime of Lamech was 777 cycles, and then he died.

777 cycles converts to 185 solar/sidereal years. Perhaps Lamech lived to be about 185 years.  I think this is a little more rational. In my system Adam would have lived to just beyond two hundred years but well less than three hundred years. 

Adam and Eve were constituted differently prior to their sin. They may have had larger and denser bodies which could hold up longer against the Earth’s gravitational tug that with time rips the atoms of a body apart. And their bodies would have also been healthier since they had not yet interacted with the objects of the fallen Earth some of which can induce harmful change effects in the body. After their sin Adam and Eve’s body mutated along with their germlines nevertheless they had not inherited their bodies from other animals which interacted with the fallen Earth. Once they fell to the surface of the Earth from Paradise they fought the tug of Earth’s gravity, interacted with the objects of the Earth, mutated and passed on their genetic codes to the children who mutated and so on. The human family's stature, density, health, along with their longevity diminished after so many generations.

The last verse of Genesis Chapter Five does not seem to belong to the genealogical list of Adam via Seth:

Noah was a son of 500 cycles old and Noah had begotten Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I understand the last verse of Chapter 5 in Genesis as an inserted Script. This Script is clearly a foreign variation of Adam’s genealogical list via Seth. Perhaps Noah or Shem or one of his descendants added it to the list as a sort of conclusion. This verse makes use of different concepts. Noah is not plainly described as having lived for X amount of time when he generated a son. In the Hebrew, he is rather described as 'a son of' 500 cycles. 'Son of' is a figurative concept meaning AS IF the 500 cycles begot Noah. In other words he was an old seasoned man.

In my system 500 cycles amounts to about 119 solar years. The second part of the verse states that Noah generated Shem, Ham and Japheth. Like the rest of the genealogical table it does not describe how old Noah was when he conceived each of his three sons, thus I understand the generations in the past perfect. When Noah was a son of five hundred cycles, or an old seasoned man, he had already been married and had three sons. This interpretation is justified by comparing this verse with the rest of the verses of Gen 5. There is a clear cut contextual difference. It is as if Gen 5:32 does not belong to the genealogical list and a few Bibles have Gen 5:32 as Gen 6:1.

All the Patriarchs of Seth’s line had conceived at least one son by the time they were in their mid forties. The oldest listed generation is Methuselah at 187 cycles. This, in my calculation, is about 44 solar years old. Methuselah had Lamech when he was about 44 solar years old.  The rest from Seth had their listed sons, younger than 44 solar years old.  There is no reason why Noah would have broken the example of his fathers. So I suppose that by the time Noah was an old seasoned man around 120 solar years old his sons, namely Shem, Ham and Japheth were adults who themselves had wives and children. It was also around this time (son of 500 cycles or about 120 years) that Noah received prophetic communications from God about the Flood. The time between Noah’s first communication of the Flood and the event of the Flood was probably around twenty eight years.

The Flood happened in Noah’s six hundredth cycle:

Noah was 600 cycles old when the flood waters engulfed the earth. (Gen 7:6)

In my calculation this amounts to about 143 solar years. So from 500 shanah (119 solar years) to 600 shanah (143 solar years) is about 24 solar years, but above I supposed that the time between Noah’s first communication from God concerning the Flood and the event of the Flood was about 28 solar years. The difference is taken from the chapter six of Genesis:



So the LORD said, “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more cycles.”

This quote, I suppose, is an abstract of God’s first interior instruction given to Noah concerning the Flood. 20 cycles at about 87 days per cycle amounts to about 4 solar years. So by the time Noah was around 115 solar years old he was first instructed about the future destruction of mankind and given the command to build the Ark. And he had about 28 solar years to complete the Ark. By the time he entered the Ark, Noah’s sons were adults.  At the Flood event, Noah had grandchildren of all ages with perhaps a few great grand children.

Another interesting thought to consider is that nowhere in the Sacred Script does it say that Noah had other sons and daughters whereas all the other Patriarchs in both Seth and Shem’s line are described as having had other sons and daughters (see chapter 5 & 11 of Genesis). Noah had three sons and that is all. His sons took wives from other families, and had children who perhaps also were married and had children. On the Ark there were four generations from Noah to great grandchildren: Noah—Shem, Ham, Japheth---their sons, e.g. Canaan---and perhaps a few young children of a fourth generation. The eight souls referred to by Saint Peter in his Epistle (1 Pet 3:20) represent the four ancestral couples who were to repopulate the Earth, namely Noah and his wife, Shem, Ham, Japheth and their wives. But there were many more on the Ark and my ‘shanah’ logic seems to fit together well with that.



After the flood Noah lived 350 cycles. The entire lifetime of Noah was 950 cycles, and then he died. (Gen 9:28)

In my system, 350 cycles equals 83 or 84 solar years. 950 cycles equals about 226 solar years. After the Flood and the event of the confusing of the tongues at Babel, I think Shem's descendants changed the scalar quantity of their 'shanah' or cycles. That is why the supposed ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 11, or Shem's line are markedly different than the Patriarchs in Genesis 5.

for more see The Noah Series: Part III

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Noah and the Flood (Part I)

We start with Noah's lineage. Like all Mankind, Noah had his roots in Adam and Eve, the first and only natural father and mother of the human family. Adam and Eve's miraculous creation were a sub-event of the one miraculous light event described in Genesis 1. Adam's body was formed by God using some of the newly worked surface of the Earth. The Spirit had minted a new surface from using the surface waters, chemicals and buried crust of our old dark star. Blessed Anne described the material that Adam was formed from as yellow mound of Earth located in a primitive Holy Land. Both Adam and Eve's bodies were constituted differently than we are today. Adam and Eve's body and ours in them changed after their sin.

After Adam stepped forth from the hillock God took him up to Paradise. Paradise, or the Garden of Eden was located up and to the east of a primitive Holy Land. Paradise was a mystical garden somewhere up in the mountains. There God miraculously created Eve using some components of Adam's right side. Then God appeared to both of them, imparted an instruction and perhaps the Blessing and retired. Soon after Adam and Eve sinned. With their sin the surface of the Earth was cursed and Paradise was disconnected from the network of atoms. Paradise still exists. It is NOT in another 'dimension'. I suppose it is up in the sky above some mountains of the Orient. Only it is disconnected from our network of atoms, miraculously sustained, and guarded by Angels, thus no one will ever see it or enter it.

Now here is my radical supposition. I suppose that when Adam and Eve were miraculously cast down back to the surface from Paradise, the Earth had cycled in a fallen course for an indefinite time metric. It could have been billions, millions, or thousands of years. When they hit the ground the Earth was radically different from when Adam was first created. And their time back down on Earth postdated whatever happened with the hominids and all the supposed evolutionary history that everyone seems to rave about these days. Enoch and Elias' miraculous transfer up to Paradise and back down to the ground at the future reign of Antichrist is similar to what happened with Adam and Eve. They do not time travel, they were miraculously cut off from the motion of matter by God.

Is this an ad hoc hypothesis? I do not conceive it as such. This interpretation stems from a radical faith-filled study of Genesis 1 & 2 & 3 buttressed by Blessed Anne's work and a fairly long process of critical thinking and rational analysis of the Text and many other concepts. Believe me I know full well the sort of ridicule this mode of interpretation may conjure up in respected intellectual Catholics and Christians alike. In my defense this supposition and theory of mine is orders of magnitude less absurd than some of the claims made in Big-Bang, quantum, relativity, modern cosmology, nebular hypothesis, NASA's search for aliens, and other currents of modern thought.

And now we get into the subjectivity of evidence, sensory validations, proofs, truths, logical derivations, etc. Outside of Divine Revelation and Magisterium . . . evidence, proofs, formal logical validations, and truths equate to one's own opinion. That which is true to one; is lies, obscurity and blasphemy to another. If you ask me; the idea that the present human family descended from a single cell, apes and hominids is a lie, insanity, obscurity and blasphemy. But to another it is a truth buttressed by subjective evidence, formal logical validations (divorced from reality), and human authority. Or it is assumed as the rational default position.  And I do not think it is reasonably possible for a living object to naturally originate from matter. I think those who attempt to discover the origin of life are looking for a miracle.  In any case with my theory of Adam and Eve I invoke God who I understand can work the suprarational and impossible whereas Mother Nature only does that which rational or possible.


With Adam and Eve's sin, the Earth's surface was cursed.  Some of Adam and Eve's children knew that well. They understood that the very good Earth from which Adam was formed had radically changed into the punished Earth that Adam and Eve were transferred back down to from Paradise after their sin.  And it is still a pain to live, work and survive on the Earth even in spite of all the modern luxuries.  But when Noah was born his father Lamech seemed to have conceived a prophetic foresight in the event of his naming:


He named him Noah, saying, “This one will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that the LORD has cursed.” (Genesis 5:29)

Lamech's insight into Noah is significant, otherwise it would have never been traced in this ancient Book of the Lineage of Adam known today as the fifth chapter of Genesis. Noah was of course an elect Saint and Lamech understood this.  And Noah descended from another Saint whose name is Enoch.  Enoch was Noah's great grandfather.  Enoch is described in Sacred Scripture as the one who walked with God and then he disappeared because God took him away to Paradise. Enoch is waiting, in reserve for a future mission:


Enoch pleased God, and he was transferred to Paradise, so that he might offer repentance to the nations. (From the Sacred Book of Sirach 44:15)

It might be good to cite Blessed Anne's passage about Enoch so as to establish a little context:



Enoch, Noah's ancestor, opposed that wicked race by his teachings. He wrote much. Enoch was a very good man and one very grateful to God. In many parts of the open fields, he raised altars of stone and there the fruits of the earth flourished. He gave thanks to God and offered sacrifice to Him. Chiefly in his family was religion preserved and handed down to Noah. Enoch was taken up to Paradise. There he waits at the entrance gate, whence with another he will come again before the last day. (From Mysteries of the Old Testament)

The wicked race Blessed Anne refers to are the so called Giants [Nephilim] descended from Cain. There are much mystique about them and hopefully I can clarify them in subsequent blogs. Notice how she mentions that Enoch wrote much. The Apostle Jude cited Enoch in his Epistle:



Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam,1 even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict every person of all their thoroughly ungodly deeds that they have committed, and of all the harsh words that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1:14)

Obviously the great Apostle Jude took Enoch seriously. Perhaps traces of Enoch's original writings can be found in the Apocryphal Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is not a Sacred Script and has probably been supplemented and changed many a time by scribes but like I said their are likely traces of Enoch's original script. I've read some of it and it seems to me that Enoch experienced private prophetic experiences much like Blessed Anne and later Noah. God did not abandon communication with Adam and some select children after the Fall.

But it is also important to not that Enoch knew how to trace characters and it can be assumed he had a primitive alphabet or lexical list much like the antediluvian Sumerians who I suppose also descended from another son and daughter of Adam and Eve other other than Abel, Cain, Seth (plus their wives). Primitive civilization developed fairly quickly after Adam and Eve hit the ground.  It did not take 50,000 years for Adam and Eve's children to begin signaling lexical concepts in the act of tracing.  

Also notice how Blessed Anne mentions that Adam's descendants offered sacrifice. Religion was established by Adam. It was just not the formal public religion of the Jews and later the Christians and Muslims. It was practiced privately by families led by a patriarch such as Enoch and later Noah. And of course Blessed Anne mentions Enoch's transfer up to Paradise where he awaits his future mission with Elias.

The sacred events of Enoch and Elias' transfer up to Paradise is important to me and my interpretation of Adam and Eve since there is a sort of an analogy. If Enoch and Elias can be transferred up to Paradise and await as the Earth cycles, why could Adam and Eve not be mystically suspended from the Earth's cycles for an indefinite time metric in their casting from Paradise?

I also see a profound Divine purpose in all of this. By the time Antichrist arrives, and Enoch and Elias are placed back down on the ground from Paradise, will anyone believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents (let alone that Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of God)? I mean even today their is a significant portion of the world who do not understand or even ridicule the concept that the entire human family descended from Adam and Even. So I suppose Enoch's arrival will convict the world of their unbelief that all derived from Adam and Eve who bodies were miraculously formed and immortal souls created by none other than God. In fact the majority of the human family is descended from Enoch through Noah (but not everyone since their were at least a hundred on the Ark as we shall see).

There is this immense power, even irony, stored up in the arrival of Enoch from Paradise. He will appear different than modern men because of his ancient roots and he will announce to the world where he came from and offer repentance. And it is forecast that he will back up his words with astonishing miracles for the whole world to see for he is one of the two witnesses of the Book of Revelation (the other is Elias):



If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and completely consumes their enemies. If anyone wants to harm them, they must be killed this way. 6 These two have the power to close up the sky so that it does not rain during the time they are prophesying. They have power to turn the waters to blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague whenever they want. (Revelation 11:5-6)

So you see: these sacred stories are still relevant. All the words of the Sacred Script are relevant and worthy of study, meditation, etc.

In conclusion to this first part: Noah had glorious roots. He descended from Adam and Eve in the line of Seth via Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech. In the event of Noah's naming, Lamech prophesied that Noah would bring comfort.    

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Origin of Life Theories Attached to Nebular Hypothesis

I started to parse through all the modern hypotheses and theories of the origin of life. Most fall under the category of abiogenesis and a few under panspermia. I've noticed that most of these assumptions and speculations are attached or inserted into the nebular hypothesis framework. And so the thought occurred to me that if nebular hypothesis is a contradictory, irrational, and impossible assumption (and I think it is) then the claims attached to nebular hypothesis such as the various origin of life assertions can be discarded.

Of course a claim of life's origin with assumption and theory has MANY more problems than its connection to the nebular hypothesis and I will soon begin criticizing some of these. For starters the scientific community has no scientific definition of life. It is absurd. Just read:


“There is no one definition that we agree upon,” says Radu Popa, geobiologist and the author of Between Probability and Necessity: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life. In the course of researching his book, Popa started collecting definitions that have appeared in the scientific literature. He eventually lost count. “I’ve found at least three hundred, maybe four hundred definitions,” he says.

Popa continues to make an excellent point:

“A science in which the most important object has no definition—that’s absolutely unacceptable,” says Popa. “How are we going to discuss it if you believe the definition of life has something to do with DNA and I think it has something to do with dynamic systems? We cannot have a conversation on any level. We cannot make artificial life because we cannot agree on what life is. We cannot find life on Mars because we cannot agree on what life represents.”

And I might add how can a scientist suppose and theorize an origin of life without a definition of life??????

On the other end of the spectrum, philosopher Cleland and her colleague Chyba are trying to convince scientific community that they need no definition of life:

Instead of trying to formulate a definition of life, Cleland and Chyba argue, we need to develop a theory of life—an overarching explanation of nature that joins together a myriad of seemingly random phenomena.

And of course this absurdity leads her to another absurdity: ALIENS

For Cleland, the most promising way to build a theory of life is to look for alien life. In 2013, the European Space Agency plans to put a rover back on Mars. Called Exomars, it will drill into the Martian crust to seek out signs of life. NASA has plans of its own on the drawing board, including one possible mission that would bring Martian soil back to Earth for intense study. Meanwhile, other promising habitats for life, such as some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, beckon. Cleland argues that finding alien life would allow us to start figuring out what is truly universal about life, rather than just generalizing from life as we know it. Only when we have more data, she reasons, will we have a basis for comparison. As it stands now, says Cleland, “we have no grist for the theoretical mill.”***

And so here we are in 2013. Everyone is gearing up to discover aliens. This isn't science fiction. They are for real.  And they are using YOUR money to find the aliens.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.   


Quantum is Ptolemaic: A Critique of Mathematical Physics

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Lexical Concept, Mode of Thought, Conceptual Processes, etc.

A lexical concept is a inherent relation of the brain signaled by utterance, gesture or trace. An utterance such as "universe" is preceded by a conception or understanding of UNIVERSE. The utterance "universe" is the signal of UNIVERSE. A lexical concept is the concept signaled or conveyed by the utterance, gesture or trace. It is the thought behind the word.  So you see there are two actions: conception of a concept and signal of that concept. All words uttered, gestured, or traced are first and foremost lexical concepts conceived of by the brain.

Concepts are dynamic relational actions of the neurons and their connectors. The brain picks out, or identifies a relation between two or more objects of an environment and/or two or more concepts of a context. What happens in reality is that neurons send signals via a physical medium. Two or more neurons relate with one another via mediators connecting all the neurons, whether those be synapses or the EM ropes connecting all the atoms at a more fundamental level. Concept, idea, notion, thought refer to dynamic relational actions mediated by neurons imparting causal action and undergoing change effect via physical mediators.

'Lexical' is a modification or qualification of the concept CONCEPT. A lexical concept is a mode of thought that is well-defined, crisp, clear, meaningful, bright, etc. Concepts such as UNIVERSE, SPACE, MATTER, LIGHT, GRAVITY, CAUSE, EFFECT, I, ME, YOU, MOM, DAD, SUN, TOHU WABOHU, etc. are orders of magnitude clearer than the concepts of an animal.  I suppose animals do not perform the mode of lexical thought that humans do. They do not conceive of LOVE, JUSTICE, etc.  Humans have a modified intelligence.  The best concept I can conceive of to describe and explain the modification is CLARITY.

I suppose that only Adam and his descendants are able to conceive of lexical concepts. The why or how is a moot point studied and debated in all these new fields that have sprung up over the past years such as neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, etc. But I suppose that the action signaled as 'lexical' concept has something to do with the shape of Adam's brain, it's complexity, the number of neural arrangements, the way in which neurons are grouped together, association cortices, and the neural pathways and synapses developed through life. These mediate signals so as to clearly conceive. Personally I believe that God also stimulates brain activity in grace phenomena such as wisdom, understanding, and knowledge.  These are conceptual processes mediated by God imparting causal action to the brain.  

When a child's brain develops to the instant it can discern shapes their brain begins carving out clear relations between shapes and these are concepts. Even if the child is fed utterances or directed to tracings by the mother and father, the child still associates his or her own personal concepts that are increasingly clear, well-defined, meaningful, crisp.  And the child relays his concepts externally back through utterance, gesture, tracing.  To learn a word is to conceive of and understand the concept signaled by the word and then use that concept and signal concepts to self and others in utterance trace or gesture.  If a child was never fed word utterances, gestures or traces I suppose that the child still has the ability to pick out well-defined, clear, meaningful and crisp associations and perhaps even initiate a new language.    

An interesting question to consider:  Are lexical concepts stored in the brain? Strictly speaking they are not. One cannot store a lexical concept in the brain as if a pair of shoes kept stored in the closet. The reason is that like I speculated above concepts are relational actions of the brain cells. Concepts are conceived and understood anew at the instant, at the cutting edge of the universe, even prior to utterance and tracing.  Every time one thinks 'I' or 'motion', it is conceived and understood anew.  Every time one conceives a complex thought (a sentence) that complex web of thought is a new rational process.  Even if one is fed a concept in utterance, gesture or tracing that concept is conceived of or understood anew.  Even if one recalls a input of utterance or trace that related a concept the underlying concepts are conceived of and understood anew.  

It is as if each brain were its own civilization.  A child initiates his civilization when he conceived of 'I' and renews it at the instant.  A child's concept 'I' is renewed and evolved to an adult's concept 'I'. A concept is not an representation, nor an ability, nor an entity.  It is an act of the present.  

Every concept is conceived of and understood anew. Think of it. This is a profound proposal I am making. All concepts are conceived of and understood anew at the instant. I suppose that the brain has the ability to store icons of objects and this would include icons of traced characters. I also suppose the brain has the ability to store sound bites. But the brain, strictly speaking does not store concepts. Perhaps the brain receives signals from the environment like the film of a camera, however these are not thoughts. These icons are used in conceptualization and understanding, but the concepts conceived of and understood are always new at the instant. I suppose the impression of icons stimulates thought, but it is not the same to have sensory impressions stored in the head than it is to conceive of and understand an icon impressed in the brain. 

Another interesting idea to consider is that thought is practically mediated at C, i.e. the velocity of light. I suppose that EM ropes connect all the atoms of the brain and by extension the chemicals, cells, etc. and that light signals play some role in imparting the action known as thought. A concept is conceived and/or understood at C.

Here is a possible interesting insight I found in regards to thought is superposition:



The second physical law available to us is the superposition principle that states that a complex wave pattern resulting from the superposition of other waves patterns preserves the physical characteristics of the component wave patterns. This would apply to the activation wave patterns of neural nodes as well. When the activation wave patterns of different neural nodes are superimposed, their combined activation wave pattern preserves the characteristics of the component wave patterns. This would yield the very important and very intuitively satisfying result that when different thoughts are combined into a single complex thought, the resultant thought preserves the characteristics of the component thoughts.(4) For example, the single wave pattern that is the single thought (Rembrandt painted the Night Watch) contains as isolatable components the several wave patterns that are the individual thoughts (Rembrandt), (painted), and (the Night Watch).  ---NEURONS, CONCEPTS, AND CONNECTIONS IN THINKING, Arnold Vander Nat

Adam can conceive of and correlate a string of complex thought almost instantaneously. Clearly one can conceive and understand a complex thought or a sentence much quicker than one can signal that thought in utterance, gesture and tracing.  Even so, think of how quick thoughts are signaled externally in utterance, gesture and trace. Your thought is conveyed via the mouth and hands almost at C.  And thought is able to come together in a network that is either rational or irrational. Perhaps this is possible due to superposition.

Another interesting notion to consider is that the brain is a living object. Life is by definition unpredictable and by the by I suppose everyone and his mom has conceived of thought out of seemingly 'nowhere'. Thought can be unpredictable.  And one will think just to think.  Concepts are not just for understanding, communication, survival, etc.  They can be conceived of just for the joy of conceiving.  A bird will sing just to sing.  A human will think just to think.  

The brain is an object that undergoes anti-gravitational and unpredictable motion.  And so perhaps even the best model of neuroscience or cognitive science will never be able to unlock the subtle dynamics of thought happening in the brain. Personally I do not think that they will ever figure it out because the process is by definition unpredictable, 'plastic', always renewed, etc. In any case we do have the ability to choose and have some dominion over our thought.  A healthy adult can choose what he or she wants to think.


Another phenomenon I find fascinating is internal dialogue. One has the ability to signal his concepts to himself. But even in an internal dialogue or an exercise such as writing the lexical concepts are conceived of and/or understood by the brain prior to signaling to oneself. But then the signal to oneself stimulates the conception and understanding of new concepts. So it is a circle of re-conception.  Perhaps I could call this learning.  

There are many fascinating concepts to consider in regards to neurons, concepts, language and the brain. I wish I had more time to learn all of this and anyone is welcome to come criticize and correct me.  But if one could take one idea from this blog the most important is that concepts do not refer to an entity that can be stored in the brain.  

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Quote of the Day: What is the Underlying Ontology of a Concept

Today I am debating with my friends about the concept of self-awareness. I will briefly blog my theory tonight. But in the meantime here is what I consider to be among the most useful sequences of philosophy I have ever read from The Ontology of Language: What is a Concept:

WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING ONTOLOGY OF A CONCEPT? 
Naturally, the critical reader will ask: What objects are responsible in mediating the relation of the lexical concept “concept” or of any other lexical concept in and of itself?
Since any lexical concept, like “concept”, is indeed a concept in and of itself, then it is a relation between objects. This whole abstraction of the underlying inter-related objects is what we collectively refer to as a CONCEPT. The concept is the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) of the word unto itself. We say that such words fall into the category of ‘concepts’ as opposed to ‘objects’. 
The objects that a lexical concept relates are what mediates the brain activity which we usually call THOUGHT. Specifically, the concept (i.e. mental thought) of any word ontologically relates the neurons in our brains and the mediation of signals between them. It is this synchronous motion of neurons (and ultimately atoms) which mediate this phenomenon or state in our brain that we call concept, idea, thought, etc. Since our definition of concept was rational and unambiguous, we were able to use it consistently onto itself without ambiguities or contradictions. 

Monday, November 11, 2013

". . that we are living on a star."

If we once realize all this earth as it is, we should find ourselves in a land of miracles: we shall discover a new planet at the moment that we discover our own. Among all the strange things that men have forgotten, the most universal and catastrophic lapse of memory is that by which they have forgotten that they are living on a star.  
---G.K. Chesterton, From The Defendent

Thank you G.K.

Of course you were right.  Some have awoken to understand that the Earth is an old transfigured star. And yes we do live in a land of miracles for the arrival of Adam and Eve, their children, and all living entities is indeed a miracle that defies the bounty of the Universe, critical reasoning, logical systems as well as sensory systems.

Are Black Holes Made of Anything?


Says it all about mathematical physics. 

Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Law of Causality is Inapplicable to 'Creation Ex Nihilo' and to Big-Bang

Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to creation ex nihilo.

The root of the Law is simple.  Aristotle's Law of Causality necessarily requires a minimum of two real objects PRIOR to the phenomenon.  Object A, called the Mediator imparts causal action to Object B called the Target. Object B undergoes change effect for the duration of the phenomenon and puts out Object C. Call Object C the Output.  The Output directly stems from the Target.

Example:  The sculptor sculpts a rock.  The Mediators of this phenomenon are the sculptor, the hammer and the chisel; all pre-defined objects that exist prior to the phenomenon.  The Target is the rock, also a pre-defined object that exist prior to the phenomenon.  The sculptor is object A1, the hammer is object A2, the chisel is object A3.  The rock is object B.  The three mediators move toward the rock and impart causal action to the rock.  The chisel comes in surface-to-surface contact with the rock.  The rock undergoes change effect for the duration of the sculpting.  And out comes a statue of David from the consummation of the sculpting event. The statue of David is object C called the Output.  The statue stemmed from the rock.  Aristotle's Law of Causality was only meant to be applied to physical objects and their phenomena.  It is a conceptual tool to facilitate understanding and communication.    


In the creation ex nihilo scenario there is only God.  God is the Mediator, Object A, however there is no real Target object B or even an Output, object C.  In the Divine Act of creation ex nihilo there is a missing objects, namely, the Target and the Output. God does not impart causal action to any pre-existing Target, object B. Thus there can be no Output, Object C.  God cannot impart causal action on space, or that which lacks form otherwise known as nothing.   This is an ontological contradiction.  

Creation ex nihilo is an 'unmediated' Act.  Creation ex nihilo is a miracle.  This miracle defies Aristotle's Law of Causality, so also ontology.  Aristotle didn't have miracles in mind when he conceived his so called 'law'.  God defies petty humans as well as reason.  According to cold hard reason the Divine Act labelled 'creation ex nihilo' is contradictory, inconceivable and impossible. God did that which to us is inconceivable and impossible.  He is One to perform miracles.  That which the Lord God conceives and chooses is DONE.  End of story.  Without knowledge of this miracle drawn from Divine Revelation, the rational default position is that matter and the nothing contouring matter (space) is eternal.  I suppose that the miracle of creation ex nihilo was elegant and I have offered something of a personal opinion of how the miracle may have unfolded in other blog posts.  I assume that it was completely different than what the Big-Bang adherents propose.


But, creation ex nihilo contradicts Aristotle's Law of Causality as well as ontology.  A Catholic Christian has no need to go and 'prove' his folly to the world by invoking intellectual dishonesty.  A fool for Christ has no need to 'jerry rig' concepts and sidestep rational processes in order to show the world that he is right and everyone else is wrong in regards to creation ex nihilo.  A human person can know God with certainty by use of reason but this is a different concept than to scientifically explain, logically derive, rationally argue, or attempt to prove via observation and evidence a miraculous act that is unknown and unexplainable.  It would be better for a Christian to accomplish conversions via prayer (especially the Rosary), self-denial and works of mercy than to argue or prove creation ex nihilo as rational and right and all else as irrational and wrong.

It is better to be a fool for Christ than to wallow in intellectual dishonesty or validate your beliefs by the ghosts of the Big-Bang (briefly treated below) and other non-sense such as the Leibnizian and Kalam cosmological arguments and Infinite Regression.  I know people who eat up Big-Bang as well as the cosmological arguments for breakfast.  They do circles around ignorant Christians who have this insatiable drive to show the world that they are right and reasonable.  God is not in need of anyone's intellectual protection.  


Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot even be applied to Genesis 1 since the Spirit of God does not come in physical contact with the surface of the Earth. A couple of posts ago I used the Law so as to frame up a context (not to argue).  I modified the Law.  I cheated, but I explained myself.  I wanted to set a context for ease of understanding and communication, but not to argue.  Normally, I do not argue in favor of miracles that defy reason and cannot be scientifically explained.  I assume faith and then see what fruit critical thinking and rational analysis might yield when applied to Divine Revelation.

But those who argue God as an Uncaused Cause or a First Cause are cheaters.  They do not even understand what the word 'cause' resolves to.  'Cause' refers to a concept, conceived of by Aristotle or some other Greek and/or persons of various cultures. Man conceived of this concept by observing physical objects.  His brain associated that an object A moves toward another object B, the two come in contact, and object B changes because of object A. So he conceived of the words cause and effect in order to facilitate understanding and communication of certain phenomena.  Cause is that which something DOES to another thing.  A causal action does not exist since it requires a conscious observer to remember and conceive.

Cause, as well as Effect (and all rational verbs and concepts) necessarily invoke or embody a minimum of two pre-existing and pre-defined objects. Try conceiving a concept without a minimum of two objects (and or concepts:  remember a concept is a relation of two or more objects).  Even the conception of the word concept 'God' requires Adam, his neurons and God (who appears to Adam). Even the One Divine Act for all its simplicity and immutability requires Three Divine Objects:  the Father and the Son and the Spirit.


There is no trick to circumvent a concept.  They are just ideas invented by Man. They do not exist and they cannot genuinely represent nouns of reality, such as God, stars, rocks, trees, persons, chisels, engine parts, etc.  Conversion of the verb-concept cause into a noun of reality is called the Reification of 'Cause'.  All causes necessarily resolve to at least two objects of existence.  Cause is the interaction of the two nouns of reality:  A Mediator imparts causal action to a Target.  In ordinary speech we may call the Mediator (object A) the Cause however this talk is not fit for science regardless of the field.  

God is not the 'Cause'.  To say that God is a Cause is the same as saying God resolves to a concept invented by a man.  Does that make sense to a Jew, Christian or Muslim?  There is no such thing as a 'cause'. And there is no such thing as an Uncaused Cause, or a First Cause.  These are meaningless titles that have no utility.  First Cause and Uncaused Cause are meaningless contradictions.  I suppose they only confuse people.  They may have worked a thousand years ago but they are no longer applicable to intelligent beings of the 21st century.  God does impart causal action to objects, but He does so supernaturally, without coming into physical contact unless of course our context is Christ Jesus and even then there is a supernatural Presence that defies rationale, ontology, logical systems, and sensory systems.  The Spirit of God living within a human person does not come in physical surface to surface contact with the soul, heart organ and brain.  From within He stimulates you miraculously. He imparts causal action to your heart and brain at WILL and this enables you to know God and to be like Jesus and to make choices like Jesus.

Furthermore, Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to the Big-Bang for the same reasons.  In Big-Bang, the Singularity replaces God.  The Singularity is the supposed Mediator, Object A. The Singularity is a fictitious mathematical concept without shape or dimensions.  It did not exist.  To suppose that it existed is inconceivable and absurd.  Where did this Singularity come from? It refers to an artificial concept, invented by the troubled mathematicians who play with dynamic concepts via their brain cells.  In Big-Bang the mythical 0D singularity (nothing) either imparts causal action to itself (nothing) or undergoes change effect from a nothing.  And outcomes an array of so much conceptual hogwash that the International Astronomical Union cannot even define their key term Big-Bang or other key terms.  It is a circus.

There are so many contradictions bloated into the Big-Bang that I do not even know where to begin.  There are so many variations of the Big-Bang how could I even possibly analyze them all?  And they contradict one another.  Those in the Big-Bang culture seem to vie for to own a piece of the hypothesis and theory.  But Big-Bang completely fails at conception.  It is irrational in all its twisted phases and flavors.


The Big-Bang theory claims that the shapeless concept space can spontaneously appear and undergo change effects such as inflation and expansion via causal action imparted by . . . who knows what???  How is that which lacks shape supposed to 'get some action'?  Perhaps from the fictitious 0D Singularity (nothing)?  Perhaps another conceptual universe (nothing)? Perhaps by abstract concepts (nothing) or supposed hierarchies of nothing? In any case, an inflation or expansion of space is an ontological contradiction called 'matterless motion'.  It is inconceivable and impossible.  Space cannot even be created, not even by God.  God cannot create that which lacks shape or move nothing.  

The Big-Bangers claim that an undefined idea called energy can be condensed into a 0D nothing and expand!  They literally work from forward to back tracing a fictitious history of this god-like idea labelled energy.

Another undefined idea labelled 'density' is qualified by the inapplicable adjective infinite to infinite density. This would imply that density is an object with shape since 'infinite' is an adjective and yet an infinite object is impossible!  An object is by definition finite:  a shape is bounded from its immediate environment. 

In Big-Bang, 0D photons can convert into protons, neutrons and electrons (in other words acquire length, width, and height) and then magically attach themselves to synthesized nuclei.  This is an ontological contraction supported by a godlike mathematical equation that is divorced from reality.

Before we even get to the explanatory phase where supposed irrational photon's 'dominated the universe' at about 10 to 9th of a second one has to wade through hierarchies of particle annihilation which is an impossible event. Discrete particles are irrational and matter cannot convert into space (nothing).  Furthermore before we even reach the 'time' of the first particle annihilation we must undergo a hierarchical process of nothings as well as wave-functions (mathematical nothings) tunneling through nothing.

Nothing just isn't nothing anymore.  Nothing refers to abstract concepts and mathematical 'entities' that supposedly exist, impart causal actions and/or undergo change effects.  [Remember exist is defined as an object (that which has shape) and location (set of static distances from an object to all other objects).
 

The Western philosophers and physicists are so confused that they now debate and discourse over the negative concept called NOTHING.  All the yellow brick roads of Western philosophy and physics leads to:  NOTHING.

Then there are the quantum fluctuations.  What is it that fluctuates at 0T?  The Singularity?  Space?  Energy?  All impossible.  Abstract concepts cannot fluctuate.  A concept cannot move.  Objects move, not concepts.  Why? Because concepts refer to nothing in existence.  They lack shape.  Concepts are mediated by brain activity.
             

The Big-Bang claims that the nothingness of space stretched the first discrete photons for 13.8 billion years via matterless motion: space (nothing) expands and accelerates the particles that never quite reach their target!!!!  Discrete particles can wave!  How this happens is beyond anyone.  Or light is a wavicle.  Who knows?  Its all good as long as they cover all their bases.  And this is the problem with Big-Bang.  They have an irrational hypothesis for the mediator of light, thus a Big-Bang cannot even be conceived or understood.  Conception of a rational medium of light is necessary prior to a hypothesis of a consummated event involving light.    

But to continue with the non-sense: a mass-less discrete particle (made of nothing) magically waves for 13.8 billions of years via the motion of nothing and we detect the temperature of nothing using techno-toys.  Then everyone is given their paycheck and prizes. The Big-Bang photons are still bombarding us to this day. We are bathed in them just as we are bathed in intellectual hogwash.

In conclusion.  Aristotle's Law of Causality cannot be applied to the Catholic belief labelled 'creation ex nihilo' nor can it be applied to the Big-Bang.  
Ontological contradictions embody the Big-Bang hypotheses and theories.  Supposing God, angels and souls is tame compared to all the supposed contradictions of Big-Bang, quantum mechanics, general relativity, special relativity and mathematical physics.

Big-Bang does not equal 'creation ex nihilo'.  If it were up to me I would have Roman Catholics distance themselves from the Big-Bang. Even if for the sake of sanity.  This stuff is way beyond what Galileo proposed hundreds of years ago.