The universe contains everything

If you are talking about the universe or the ALL you are no longer talking about particulars but the forest. It is also relevant that there is a sentient YOU talking, and thinking, about the universe. Thus, the universe also contains a mind, at least YOURS, that thinks of and talks about the universe. That is not a possible “what if”. Thus any “what if” “there were no you” sort of question is not only not interesting.

1) The universe contains everything so nothing is left over from any of that to be a quality of the universe.

2) The "laws" that govern anything cannot apply to the universe as all such "laws" are part of the universe, or are trees in the forest, and do not apply to the universe itself. Hence, there is no "end to" nor "beginning of" the universe as all spaces and times are parts of the universe and are not nor can be descriptive of the universe.

3) When YOU are talking about the universe it is also true that you [and your talking] is a part of the universe.

4) There can be no extrinsic geometry for there is no intrinsic geometry, universally speaking: there is no inside for there is no outside either and there is no time nor space left over for the universe itself.

5) The ultimate questions about the universe require not a bunch of phantasmal "what ifs", as fun, interesting, and instructive in their contemplation and play though they may be: we must ultimately deal with THIS universe and not another for there is no other. And the one includes the thinking and talking about the universe and includes YOU and all who think and talk.

6) Any realistic contemplation of the universe by the very statement entails a sentience to contemplate such a thing: it is in fact THE one characteristic of the universe as universe that I can guarantee is real and provable: sentience. This holds for any phantasmal speculation as well. YOU reading this is such proof.

7) Therefore, any speculation about the universe entails that the universe has sentience.

Any “What If there is no intelligence in the universe” is thereby a nonsense from the first by immediately being self contradictory. Any “What If intelligence ceases to be” as a possible scenario for the ultimate or fundamental end-reality of that which is in the universe is similar. For if there is no sentience there then is no “what if [anything]”. It is what might be called a brutal fact that “I” entails “I am”. To even think absurdly about the world just shows that there is a thinking entity. No monkey and no bug can say “I” and for monkey and for bug there is no reality and no sentience and no thought and for such creatures there is nothing there. If no such world-fate can be shown it is as if there is no such thing.

I understand the idea people speak about of a dead-end-world such that maybe it really is the fate of the world to end in a blah of inactive stuff and the end of all causes having generated an end of all reactions to yield an all used up energy state of dead with no there anywhere anymore forevermore, amen, and all that such that there is no you, me, nor any I left nor possible. Well, then, “DUH!” to you too.

If anyone shows that such is the fate of sentience then I and no one else could have anything to say. Since nothing is so shown then what I have said stands loud and clear.

If there is an alternate universe or even one other than the one I write about that we cannot know about then that is as real as anything else non-existent, and there is no there for that there for real.

THE UNKNOWN OR UNKNOWABLE IS JUST THAT: NOT REAL, NON-EXISTENT.

Creationists insist on god as a science

Creationists insist on god as a science and as a physically real entity. They fail to be honest. They will not leave god as a social matter of a common faith in fellow humanity. They cannot be honestly argued. The skeptics also need to be informed of the limits to mere faith in science. It is a matter of honesty, being honest, of knowledge, of what is known, and of what is knowable.

1) “It’s the epistemology, stupid!” as the saying goes. This goes for creationists, intelligent designers, atheists, skeptics, scientists, neurotics, psychotics, and everyone else.

2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics or entropy cannot apply to the universe as the universe is not a closed system, by definition. Otherwise, the universe would not be all containing and not all inclusive and indeed would have an outside and/or an other and would not be the universe. Then the new version of the universe would have the other plus the rest and then there would be the all in one universe and then we could go back to the start and argue it all over again. If there was a big bang it did not and could not be the universe. By definition. And what other definition would and could there be?

3) Further, and more important, or more relevant, is that the human mind is the fundamental, ultimate, raw natural resource of human kind. Such is so that it is part of the human environment as well. Whose environment means anything without the human being there to know of it or have a meaning for it or know of a meaning for it or for anything?

3)a) The human mind and its ability to solve problems entailing the human ability to do so, similarly.

3)b) The human ability, similarly, to create the new and the never before, that is, realize or make real the ideas the mind creates, de novo. This is in complete disregard to the Physical / Material nature of the beast, I mean the human, the human mind..

4) Similarly, no laws of anything can apply to the universe, nor the universe as a whole, by definition, and what other definition would or could there be: see above. The universe is not a “thing” nor is it a “mere thing” nor, to put it simply, is the universe any thing. It is a thing in the same sense that an idea is.

5) Just as the sidewalk is more than the vibrations of itty bitty bits of matter that keep us on the top as we walk on it so is the universe more than the many big and otherwise commensurable pieces that make it up.

6) IF, and there is the rub, IF the all that is were to end in an entropic blah as the end of time and space and mind then we might as well jump off a high place. Or IF, to rub it again, IF the universe contained an entropic engine then I ask what if on back. To “what if ... ?” all the time and anytime and in any way at all is what might be called childish and with older ones we might call it neurotic. After a number of times we eventually learn enough to wonder “why are you asking in the first place”. We ask what is to be known from the asking and from what knowledge is the question even asked. Asking what if the universe were to be nothing but an entropy machine is to ask what if we have no being other than to not be.

As an example, let us assume there was an end to the all. Coming to the end of the universe, bypassing everything and reaching the furthest of all, what would and what could there be there? Would there be a wall? A wall of, say, gasp, nothingness? IF the answer is nothing then there is nothing to know and therefore, cough, nothing to say about nothing, there would be nothing to talk about, nothing to know, and as it would be the same as nothing being there then there would be a definite case of no there there. IF the answer is something then you would not have reached the end. What IF, ouch, that rub again, the world ended in a blah, entropy style? What if we watched it happen? IF the answer is nothing then there is nothing to know and therefore, cough, nothing to say about nothing, there would be nothing to talk about, nothing to know, and as it would be the same as nothing being there then there would be a definite case of no there there. IF the answer is something then you would not have reached the end. I am not repeating myself. That is the only logical answer to that what if.

As I mentioned before: this is part of an OLD-OLD-OLD, by this year 900 years and more, argument for the incommensurability of god. GIVE IT UP ALREADY.

For creation versus evolution, it is not a matter of one or the other. The creationists and intelligent designers are not seeking to know nor desirous of knowledge nor coming from a knowledge so there is nothing to know and there is therefore no good strategy to debate them: they are dishonest at the get go by denying all possibility of knowledge.

It is a peculiar thing to demand the supremacy of god and god’s creation of life and humankind over science. God is not the processes of creation and development in nature. The god issues and the creationist’s issues and the intelligent designer’s issues are a matter of power... and the need to fill their plate: they have a living to make. If I do not believe then they will pass the plate or the hat anyway and demand I place in it what they want and if they had the power they’d force me to do so.

THEREFORE: it is NOT a matter of delusion nor belief nor faith nor honesty but it is a matter of power.

Theory of Evolution is just a Theory ?

1) Creationists/Intelligent Designers insist that the Theory of Evolution is "just a Theory" but have no problem with the Theory of Relativity being a "just" a "Theory". DUH! There is no use arguing with them as they insist and do not think about "it" any.
2) As for anything "outside" the universe creating the universe: that is a VERY OLD bit of nonsense. The “all” includes all and has no outside and contains all times and all spaces by definition. That includes all causes of any and all things by definition. The universe or the “all” includes all creations and creativity by definition. There is nothing “left over” to “cause” the universe, no space “left over” for the universe to be in, and no “time” for the universe either. This is an old-old-old argument for the incommensurability of god developed in the 1100’s by monastery monks and need not be debated anymore. [The very same monks also developed the notion of uncountable infinite numbers by the contemplation of the number of possible incommensurate angels dancing, as angels do not “stand around”, on an infinitely small space.] As god could have no precursor, god being the creator, so the universe, the “all” that everyone said god created, cannot have any other either, and thus could have no.... UH OH! They had to stop the talk. They adjourned the discussion to FAITH as the absolute limit of the necessary use of reason, a gift from god not to be despised nor unused, and left reason right there as able to go no further. They were at least honest as well as religious monks.

LaRouche Webcast Wed02-11-2009

February 11, 2009 Webcast
LaRouche Webcast Wed02-11-2009 for 2hr38min43sec
Audio playable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Audio downloadable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Video playable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
Video downloadable in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian
++++++++++++++
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2009/02/11/larouche-webcast-february-11-2009.html

I have my angers about LaRouche et al. But here he does what he does best. Here he explains economics, political economy, the current financial mess, the need for the new president to act with the appropriate advice, and relates his knowledge to the current gambling debt fiasco we are burdened with right now.

Science & Culture

Science & Culture
LPACTV: The Matter of Mind

http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/12/15/lpactv-matter-mind.html

Here is the mind set out as a natural resource for humanity. And as THE fundamental natural resource.
Here is set out the universe as a process and not a collection of elementary particles. Here the world is shown as NOT a bunch of chaotic and random particles.
Here is also the point / line / field paradox resolved.

The Question of Money as Government Issue Credit Versus Bank Issued Money

I fail to understand the difference in the two notions (1) The notion of a government making money versus (2) The notion of a government using the banking system to make money. All governments control money. It has got to be so because that is why the governments control who makes the currency or the paper or the coin or the mode of debt settlement. If the US Congress has the Constitutional power to make money I wonder who else would or could it ever be? The US Congress must use the banks to dispense the money, be it as credit or as physical currency. If it gives away that power then it has given the right away, right or wrong. But if any government ever wants it back, or if a government lacking any stated constitutional power over money wants such power in the first place, any government may do so by fiat backed by the army, as any government has the power to do anyway, if it is a government worth talking about seriously.

It was LaRouche who asserted the need for the USA Congress to take its constitutionally asserted power over money creation seriously. This LaRouche asserted as opposed to what he said was every other country which uses banks.

I love Lyndon Hermyle Larouche and his basic economic ideas.

But here, again, I find him odd. His argument bypasses the need for the US government to take control of the economy out of the hands of the gamblers (who do not run the economy but ruin it). If the US government wants to end the financial debacle it needs nothing more than its own power backed up with the military, which here is the people, which, in the end, IS the power.

I figure that what LaRouhe means is that Congress has the power built in without resort to invention. and they are not using it. And that they had better use it and use it right.

The problem is that no one seems to be listening to him too hard. He wants to cancel debt that makes no sense. NO money to finance bad debt. That is what happens in a bankruptcy, as properly done. And Congress has the given power to not pay anything to the bad debt holders. What seems to be happening is that "they" want to keep the bad debt and have us finance it. If it is bad, and the gambling debt they created while they, like gamblers out of control, played with our economy, is B A D, then Congress should refuse to pay it.

A little early but ...

To Dutch and Flemish readers, een fijne Sinterklaas!
Sinterklaas (also called Sint-Nicolaas in Dutch and Saint Nicolas in French) is a holiday tradition in the Netherlands and Belgium, celebrated every year on Saint Nicholas' eve (December 5th) or, in Belgium, on the morning of December 6th. The feast celebrates the Saint Nicholas' name day the patron saint of, among other things, children.
It is also celebrated to a lesser extent in parts of France, as well as in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The traditions differ from country to country, even between Belgium and the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, Saint Nicholas' Eve, (December 5) is the chief occasion for gift giving. The evening is called pakjesavond ("presents' evening").
Sinterklaas is the basis for the North American figure of Santa Claus. It was during the American War of Independence, that the inhabitants of New York City, a former Dutch colonial town (New Amsterdam) which had been swapped by the Dutch for other territories, reinvented their Sinterklaas tradition, as Saint Nicholas was a symbol of the city's non-English past. The name Santa Claus is derived from older Dutch Sinte Klaas.

The nonsense I was given as a child that “Santa” comes from the Spanish and “Clause” from the German and that the name “Santa Clause” had an inexplicably unknown source and at best a purely commercial source is shown to be absurd.