Erasing Impossibilities

Erasing Impossibilities
by Manfred F. Schieder

1. ERASING IMPOSSIBILITIES [1]

It may come as a surprise to read that philosophy does not need to dedicate itself to investigate what exists. Its metaphysical task basically ends with the statement that "existence exists". In this relation, it merely states the law of identity indicating that everything that is has an identity, which means that it has characteristics that identify it as what it is. This identity, moreover, is the cause of multiple direct and indirect effects.
The Law of Identity rests on the laws of logic deduced by Aristotle, that is:
a)            Everything is what it is (Law of Identity: A is A)
b)            Nothing can be and not be what it is at the same time (Law of Non-Contradiction: A is what it is or it is not A)
c)            Everything is what it is or it is something else (Law of the excluded middle:
A cannot be A and non-A at the same time).
Attached to the Law of Identity and inseparably connected to it is the Law of Causality: the identity of what is definitively sets the actions to what it is capable. The Law of Causality indicates that the origin of the actions of anything lays in what it is. In philosopher Leonard Peikoff's words: "Causality is a law inherent in being qua being. To be is to be something – and to be something is to act accordingly." [2]

   These laws of identity and causality automatically pertain and dominate everything that exists. They are part and product of all that is.

The laws of identity and causality lead us to far extended consequences. One of them is that we cannot state that something could exist outside of the universe and have consequential actions on the universe since the term universe signifies everything that is, for „Universe“ is not an independently existing object but an abstract term standing for „all that exists”. By definition, beyond the universe there is nothing. In fact, this in itself already suffices to define as a contradiction in terms, the statement that something exists (or could exist) outside of the universe and be the cause or action of anything within the universe.

We must even be extremely careful with the way in which we word what we are saying since even to state that something exists within the universe is a needless repetition of the term itself as it cannot exist out of the universe or without the universe. If it were the only thing existing, it would be in itself the universe. The universe is all there is and nothing can exist anywhere else for there is no "anywhere else". Hence, "existence exists" is an axiom and, thus, self-sufficient as every other axiom. In fact, it is the basis of every other axiom.

   Existence involves the only possible place of existence, not just where it exists, but that it is a singularized part of all that exists. If it does not exist, it cannot be said that it exists "somewhere" else. There is no "somewhere else". Moreover and with regard to some authors who often write about "universes", "multiverses", "parallel universes" and so forth, they show, by doing so, that they have never taken into consideration the definition of universe itself, else they would not commit such a contradiction in terms, as there can be no multiplicity of "universes". The universe is ALL that exists and as such, there can be no multiplication of "ALL that exists" since the term itself makes this impossible. Hence, the universe is grammatically as well as in existence a singular. It has no plurals.

The foregoing is completely and sufficiently self-evident, yet mankind has been subjected to such a mess of contradictions that most human beings deeply believe that the fantasy, which is served to them, is the only possible explanation. Since humanity has always been ruled by notions exactly opposite to what I have just stated above, it will come as a surprise to say that while they have intellectually held to what they have been taught officially, they lived their lives holding subconsciously to the exact opposite. Would they not have done so humanity would have disappeared a long time ago. However, this contradiction of terms creates a deep-rooted sense of guilt, which is, of course, totally convenient for any ruling elite.

   Self-evidence is, thus, not so self-evident. Religions hold that "beyond" the universe there is "something else" which created and rules what exists, and even scientists – remember Beadle's case mentioned before – adhere to such a false and ridiculous concept.

   Though philosophy's duty is to deduce from reality the axioms upon which a rational life follows, it has, up to the development by Ayn Rand of the Philosophy of Objectivism, failed miserably. Hence, the development of a rational society is only now facing its beginning. The Big Change is a Herculean task which will take the capacity and efforts of all those involved in the endeavor. The enormousness of the task involved becomes clear when we consider that, either out of ignorance or for the purpose of leading people on the false track, a scientist such as Stephen Hawking participated on a seminar of cosmogony organized by Jesuits at the Vatican, holding to the notion that the universe was "created" by a "superior" something. It is things like these that make it necessary for this writing to enter more deeply than it would really be necessary into metaphysics and epistemology to eradicate the errors and contradictions existing between what the universe is and what certain scientists purport us to accept on faith.

   To establish the basic rules of rational procedure philosophy applies the findings of epistemology, which is the science that studies the means by which we obtain our knowledge. While metaphysics and epistemology together constitute the theoretical part of philosophy, epistemology takes up the largest portion. It will come as a further surprise to some of the readers when I state that philosophy does not exist secluded in some marble tower since out of its findings results the practical art of living. We owe this knowledge to Ayn Rand. Rational life is not a hodgepodge of unrelated actions but the finely assembled series of purposefully peaceful and productive acts towards the specifically selected aim of existence. Some will now say that the terms "peaceful" and "productive" have been artificially added here. In a later chapter related with the political findings of philosophy it will come out with total clarity why only peaceful and productive acts belong to a rational human existence. In fact, it will be clearly established that all the errors we commit come from not respecting the laws and rules of metaphysics and epistemology.

   Most philosophers have either held to the biblical theory of genesis or what scientists have just discovered about metaphysics, depending on the historical moment or the latest fashion. In the worst cases, they have made every possible attempt to combine beliefs with science, the result always being gibberish of unanswered questions and unsolved contradictions.

   Philosophy does neither depend on latest discoveries nor on changing theories or conclusions. Against what philosophers have always tried out through the times, their task is not the recording of any dark fantasies but the commitment to truth. This may also surprise the reader and requires, thus, a further, clear exposition, since there seem to be too many different philosophies.

   A scientist like Stephen Hawking must really have been in a state of extreme confusion when he participated on a seminar of cosmogony, as cosmogony is not a science but a mixture of irrational intentions to explain a non-existing origin of the universe. The unexpressed intention here is to operate on the term "universe" itself without respecting its definition. Scientists studying the cosmos - a synonym for universe – very often fall into the trap of disregarding the definition of "universe" itself with the purpose of presenting their beliefs not as the senseless vagaries they are but as established facts. They can do so only by leaving aside the definition of universe. For , as already stated before, „Universe“ is not an independently existing object but an abstract term standing for „all that exists”. Make no error: it is by no means an act of forgetfulness that Hawking does not mention a definition of "universe" in the glossary of his book "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes". The confusion existing is so great that some do this even unconsciously, such as Victor J. Stenger when, in his book "Not by Design" he states that "the universe is an accident". Since it was not "made“, it also cannot have been an accident. It is what it is. It is an axiom.

   In anticipation to what is to come I can here already state that the universe is not the result of any making nor that it exists by chance. By definition, it simply is "all that exists". It is by no means whatsoever, all that exists plus "God", for this constructs a contradiction within the terms of what the definition stands for. It has also no origin, as this would involve the existence of a "place" from where it comes, these being impossibilities, which the definition itself marks as contradictions, since here we would have reached again the point of "all that exists" plus "something else". The additional contradiction presented by what could have originated such "another place" and, eventually, a "maker" itself, in an endless retrogression, does not add anything significant to the matter. To declare that this "other place" and the eventual "maker" do not need to have any origin at all is unnecessarily adding a further contradiction to the matter. The definition of all that exists proves itself as an axiom by its own meaning. The intention of proceeding to impossible points of departure is part of the contraptions by which scientist like Einstein, Beadle, Hoyle, Hawking and so forth have demonstrated their own guilt when trying to sustain The Big Lie.

   All this involves also an ostensible and on purpose perpetrated subversion of the language. If by "universe" we should mean "a part of that which exists", it would become necessary to introduce a new, not yet coined, term to define what "universe" is already defining, that is "the totality of what exists"[3]. Such an endeavor would be senseless. Hence, scientists as well as religious people, all philosophers adhering to the traditional way of thinking and the general public must here be warned that I will hold to the strict meaning of the term and demonstrate that those who do not do so are inevitably using this intended partialization of the definition for dishonest purposes. Whether their fellow men accept the deceit through unawareness or for devious purposes of their own, lies within the realm of psychology and remains, thus, beyond the scope of this writing. Here it suffices to point out the fact.

   Truth, however, cannot be hidden forever. It permanently pushes against the barriers of contention, the "dams" which intend to "dam" it. In the final analysis, to reveal the truth will be a matter of survival for humanity as a whole. As Jacob Bronowski mentioned in his book "The Ascent of Man": "Knowledge is not a book of loose leafs, each containing an isolated fact... From now within the coming 50 years, if the knowledge of man's origin, evolution, history and progress is not a commonplace in all text-books, the human species will have disappeared". Same can be said of the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic facts of the universe. Bronowski wrote his warning in 1973. If mankind does not accept the facts and starts to live in accordance with them, humanity will be at its end.

   Time is running out but truth should necessarily succeed with the inevitable consequence that society's philosophical basis will be changed to the conditions established by reality. Such a society will be, on a worldwide basis, completely different to what it is now known to be. We will not notice it neither immediately nor too strongly since the process is a progressive one that is already taking place all around us, however unnoticeable this may seem now. The time will come when it will be so evident that the existing establishment will apply every possible means to eliminate the challenger. That will be a most dangerous time. The setting up of the only true philosophy will unleash the fury of a way of life whose end has come. Dying dinosaurs are dangerous! This happens, as so often before in mankind's history, at a time when humanity stands at the brink of ending itself. The new philosophy is called Objectivism. We will look closer at it later on.

   This inevitably upcoming change can be evidenced by the fact that the fundamentals for understanding the universe are known since over 2.500 years and pushing through now. The description of the place where our existence happens is neither difficult to explain nor does it require a specifically trained mind. Whoever says that it can only be understood by "higher" minds is cloaking himself in arrogance toward his fellow men. Let us, thus, turn to the main purpose of this writing and describe the universe.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Due to the very definition of the term "universe", the universe itself lacks any cause. It is itself the concept of the sum of everything existing.

   A mental experiment will graphically show what is meant by "the whole of what exists". Imagine one unit of any object whatsoever which, in this case, we will symbolize by a sphere. In your imagination leave everything else aside, consider everything else as non existing, including yourself, which is a mentally difficult task to do as it involves also a contradictory implication based on the fact that our language is so thoroughly object oriented that the situation of considering oneself as not existing is even awkward to describe (The connection in our languages to objects is a metaphysical and epistemological necessity, as we shall see later on). However, since here we deal merely with a mental experiment to clarify things we will take for granted that this sphere represents everything that is, i.e. that it does not "contain" everything that exists but that it IS everything that exists.

   Looking at the sphere we can see that it has, of course, an edge, i.e. it is limited. This sphere represents the universe. It is round because the round shape is intrinsic to the universe itself, as it is directly related with the laws of gravitation. In the universe, everything existing is the relative center of the universe. So are you. Further on, it exemplifies a further necessary statement: everything related with a curve operates on the value of Õ (Pi), and everything related with Pi includes both the concepts of finitude and infinity, as we have now an infinity due to Pi and, at the same time, finiteness (a border), which can be expressed in round numbers by the radial distance from the center, Pi being the relation of the diameter of a circle to its perimeter. Pi itself is an endless number; hence, it involves infinity. However, since it is the diameter which establishes the border of the sphere, its content is limited.

   You may now contend that the universe is not shaped like this, that it could be shaped in any other way. However, to show it as the outline of a sphere makes no difference whatsoever in relation with what will be explained here as, may I remind you again, this is only a symbol representing "everything existing". In addition, as already said, any shape containing a curve includes, automatically, the concept of infinity. Or, to borrow from Parmenides (about 450 before our time count), everything existing, whether large enough to be perceived directly by our senses or small enough to require special scientific instruments for its detection, is part of what "universe" defines.

   Also, anything that does not exist, just does not exist. It just isn't. End point.

   What can there be beyond the edge? Nothing, absolutely nothing is beyond the edge. The symbol represents everything existing, everything there is, wherever it may be, however far it may be from the observer (you, the reader). The symbol, let us state this unmistakably clear, represents all there is. It also stands, as a direct and inevitable consequence, for the fact that absolutely nothing is beyond its rim. It encompasses everything! What does not exist cannot form part of it, precisely because it does not exist. Absolutely nothing is "beyond the edge", for the definition of what the word "universe" stands for is perfectly well defined.
The "beyond the edge" expression is, in this context, even a contradiction. Here again I must repeat Parmenides' statement that our languages are so object-related that it is even difficult to express what we mean by an impossibility. When we say "there is nothing" we instantaneously strive to imagine something not definable which might "represent" this nothingness, as if it were something physically existing. But it doesn't. "It" (here again we use a physical expression which in this case stands for an impossibility) isn't!

   If we were to say that "beyond" the universe there is a never-ending void we would also commit a contradiction in terms since we would be accepting the "existence" of something which we call "void". There is neither a void nor anything else at all "beyond the edge". Whatever would be found "beyond" the edge would signify a mental mistake made by the observer. Universe means everything that exists, which points to the fact that the observer just forgot to include in the definition what was thought to be "beyond" the universe according to the rule of the term itself, i.e. everything existing. We would just be back at the beginning. Even if we were to say that "beyond the universe" there is "total darkness" we would just be repeating the contradiction with other words. Hence, the term universe uniquely and rightly signifies only that we mean everything that exists and nothing more, which is both a necessary and self-sufficient statement. Universe is, thus and in accordance with its definition, the synonym to "All that exists" or, also "all that is". It is an absolute.

   "Well, there must be some power, some 'God' or the like, something which originated the universe", someone might now say. Whoever does so is totally missing the meaning of what we have just said. As said already before, anything that might exist "beyond" the universe does not lie "beyond" but is, by definition, part of the universe, i. e. all that exists. Hence, in the utopical case that we were to accept that "God" (whatever we may mean by this) "made" the universe (again, whatever we may mean by this) we would already be facing an impossibility. If this "God" exists, it would automatically be part of all that exists and, thus, cannot have created what already existed eternally. This "God" couldn't also "exist beyond" the universe because, again, the universe includes everything that is and nothing can lie "beyond"[4]. Further on, the "creation" of a universe out of an already existing universe is a contradiction in itself. Even more, we must remember that, since by “universe” we mean all that exists, an additional contradiction comes up here, as there are many things which were made by human beings and, thus, could not have been made by the utopical “God”.

   Pantheists, who mean that "God" is everywhere, would now come up with the fallacy that "God" is just a synonym for "universe", that "God" himself is the universe. This is a double contradiction since what the pantheist means here is that "God" had to make himself first and then the universe. Out of what? Out of nothingness? Nothingness is not just a part of existence. It is nothing. It does not exist. Thus, we have two impossibilities in a row. End point, since the conclusion that this "God" would have had to "create" himself in the first place pertains not only to Pantheism but also to all religions in general.

   Well, then, "God" would have, then, to be "made" out of existence. But this is also a contradiction since it would require the very idiotic act of "making" existence itself out of existence. This would place "God" on the same level as man, and not on any "superior" level since only a living, rational, being can make something different out of something already existing (like man producing semiconductors out of silicon and several other elements). This is again the Heraclitean notion that man "made 'God' in his own image and likeness" just as cows, if they could, would have gods looking and acting like cows. Moreover, to "make" all that is out of all that is would also be a senseless purpose.
However, since the definition involved is so peculiarly important, let us use another example of what is meant. Could the reader explain what a non-apple is? Is it an apple taken away from the fruit bowl or is it an "apple" that never even existed? Nothing cannot be anything. Let me repeat it: any intention to give identity to what does not exist produces a contradiction in terms. At least one of the premises on which it is based is false and must, thus, be corrected.

Let us now go on to the two premises that follow from this and the resulting conclusions deducted by Parmenides. These premises relate directly to the definition of "universe". They are as follows:
1)      What is, is
2)
After the enumeration of 2), a blank space has been left on purpose, to better convey the sense of the premise immediately resulting from the first one, which is: "What is not, is not". As said before our language is so object oriented that it cannot describe what is meant by the statement "What is not, is not" in any other way than by not saying it, since "what" already implies an object and "not" is the negation of either something existing or of negating the action of something existing. But here no object at all is involved ("Not being" is, in this context, no object of any kind whatsoever[5]). It is by no means something else or something different existing apart from what exists but just nothing at all. It cannot even be "seen" or conceptualized as a void ("big" or "small" makes no sense in this relation) since, as said before, a void creates in us the impression of a "place" which can somehow be "seen" as limited by some measurable size. Hence, leaving a blank is the only way to "show" what is meant by the statement, however "awkward" this may look.
From this - basically the only possible main premise ("What is, is") - the following conclusions, both necessary and sufficient, must be drawn:
a)      What is, is uncreated.
b)      What is, is indestructible, which means that it is, necessarily, eternal.
c)      What is, is unchangeable.
For a better understanding, I will explain this – particularly point c) - in a more detailed way. It is necessary to do so as it will allow to oppose the objection that at any moment new things are created and others are being destroyed. "Nothing is eternal" is a common saying and, besides, we can all see how things, particularly living matter, changes[6]. While rocks, due to the abrasion resulting from other rocks falling on them or sliding by, the impact of rain drops throughout the ages and the effect of wind blowing over them, are finally reduced to grains of matter and even smaller, the change can be much better observed on living beings: they are born, they grow, they reproduce themselves, they die and decompose then. The hand that writes these lines as well as the eyes of the reader grow older and weaker with every passing second. This is a particular characteristic, which only affects living matter. How, then, can it be said that what is, is unchangeable? How can the conclusions be held to be sufficient and necessary? Didn't Lavoisier already state that nothing disappears but everything changes? Read this carefully for the first part of the statement already implies the explanation.

   The universe is composed by matter in a multiplicity of components and appearances, i.e. the basic elements and its atomic components such as protons, neutrons, electrons and all their sub-components and effects like quarks, electromagnetic waves, etc. All of these parts of nature, both in a pure or a combined state, have each a specific identity which obliges them to act in ways which are strictly related to them. Here the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality apply. Given the same circumstances, helium will expand, and a leave will fall to the ground. Some materials will change from liquid to solid and so forth. The combination of certain elements among themselves, produce effects that can be discerned by any expert in physics and chemistry. We see strictly determined behaviors. Under a given circumstance, two atoms of hydrogen will join one atom of oxygen and form water. It is unnecessary to multiply the possible examples. Occam's razor operates here. However, hydrogen will always be hydrogen in its various appearances (Deuterium and Tritium, for example), Iron will always be iron, copper will always be copper, and so forth. Uranium will remain being uranium as long as it does not decay into other, lower, elements but the resulting elements will again be recognized by their particular characteristics. Iron will remain to be iron and copper will remain to be copper as long as we don't place them into an accelerator to split them into their component parts (Proton, electrons, etc.) but these too will have their defining characteristics. Nothing can disappear into nothingness. Due to this, it has been possible to elaborate a periodic system of chemical elements.

   We define materials and their related effects by means of concepts and hold them as verbal expressions of what we can prove by ostensive definitions, that is by pointing at them either with our hand or through scientific instruments, however complicate it might be. Would we not do so, language would be impossible; there would be no means of communication and civilization itself would never have developed. However, let us not proceed too fast for here we are involving already epistemology itself and this will only be considered in a later chapter.

   Changes are all around us, and of course a spermatozoa and an ovum will develop, in due course and if all goes naturally well, into a newborn baby, then a child, a grown up person, etc. But these are only changes of aspect. However important this is, it can be left unconsidered for what I want to clarify here. To use a short cut we can say that the basic substance, which makes up everything that exists in its multifarious ways, is always the same. We could call it by any coined word whatsoever, as it is done nowadays when we refer to the “quark”, for example, but to finally and definitively establish whatever this basic substance may be, belongs to the realm of natural science. Scientists are most busy investigating the matter. It is this as "matter" named basic substance, which is meant here when speaking of it being unchangeable. This substance can adopt new forms and change these forms but it cannot change its substance. As mentioned a few phrases earlier: "Everything changes; nothing disappears" said Lavoisier. This is not a contradiction to Parmenides statement, for the basic elements do not disappear nor do they change their intrinsic characteristics, they only combine differently. Take a proton out of the nucleus of a given atom and it is no longer the earlier element. It is now a different element but neither the atom nor the loosened proton has disappeared. Thus, it is to this permanence to which we refer when we say that the basic substance does not change, however many possible forms it may take. It is only in this sense that Pamenides' third conclusion operates. We can take a wool skein as a simple example. We can make handkerchiefs, socks, pullovers or a scarf with it, but the wool itself will always remain the same.

   Some, mostly the religious and the all-is-indeterminate types, will now oppose "Why? Can't it just – puff! - disappear?" No, it cannot. The reason is, again, that by definition, the universe is all that exists and, to disappear, it would have to disappear to a not existing place, i.e. into nothingness. This is impossible, as we have shown already, for there is no way into where anything could disappear. It remains and is, thus, eternal, which is Parmenides' second conclusion.

   We move in circles. The infinite forms that the substance that is may adopt are determined by its identity and subject to the physical and chemical laws, which are permanently and inseparably part of it. Not the laws of nature determine the basic substance but this, in its various manifestations, determines the laws of nature. It can, thus, never change in any unprecedented way. The basic substance itself determines its frame of existence, there being nothing else beyond. Identity has consequences and these consequences are not a result of wishful thinking. Lysenko convinced Stalin that such wishful thinking was possible, that matter could be "pushed" to adopt communistic aims. All he got, besides the criminal effect of sending those brilliant minds who knew better to their untimely death, was throwing Russia's genetics into the farthest past.

   The above brings us immediately back to the first premise. Matter is uncreated for there is nowhere from where it could have "come" to the universe (all that exists). Hence, we are now again, where we started: What is, is. What is not is not. End point.

   On the round trip, we had a powerful companion: Aristotle's laws of logic. Whatever is, is what it is (A is A, the Law of Identity). It must be either what it is or something else (A is either A or non-A: the Law of Non-Contradiction) and, finally, it cannot be at the same time what it is and what it is not (A is either A or non-A: the Law of Excluded Middles). In other words, to borrow from philosopher Ayn Rand: "A leaf cannot be at the same time completely green and completely brown, it cannot at the same time be completely frozen or in the process of complete combustion"[7].

   The outcome of the foregoing is fundamentally important for it gives us the knowledge that we live in a stable, firm, absolute universe that can be studied and understood. Stable, firm and absolute means that what is cannot arbitrarily change its characteristics but only do so in accordance with what it is and the natural laws, which are inherent to it. Intellectually this, in itself, is the end of religion. Intellectually, it is the start of metaphysics and the start of all that follows from it. In fact, religion's full range of fallacies and contradictions denounce it as what it is: witchcraft, not intellectuality. In reason – the faculty that identifies and integrates all that exists – we live in a comprehensive universe. Volcanoes are a death threat for all living beings but they will not suddenly turn into a garden of thornless roses, as much as we may wish when we are in the track of the lava they spill out (barring Hollywood's tricks, if you allow the joke).

   We can now deal specifically with what exists. The implications which result from this for religions and "spiritual philosophies" have already become evident and overwhelming. As a consistent atheist, I don't need to return to this matter. Just for the record: we do not need to care beyond necessity for beliefs that contain their own destruction.

   What is, is, an enormous but, at the same time, necessarily limited set of material things existing (the atomic elements, their combinations and effects) out of which an infinite amount of new things can be made if we apply reason, the faculty that identifies us as human beings. This includes, of course and besides what is immediately perceivable, electromagnetic waves, gravitation, weak and strong forces, etc., etc., the nature of many of them not yet discovered but in the process of being so. This set is closed in itself as nothing can leave the universe into nothingness. Nor, of course, is there anything that might be "added from the outside". Everything existing within the universe has a cause (for example: a tree grows out of a seed) but not so the universe itself[8]. Since it cannot disappear it has, thus, also not come from somewhere, and, therefore, it cannot have been created. It just is. In accordance, the universe itself has no cause of its existence; it is itself causeless. A contradiction would result if we were to say that the universe must have a cause for its existence because the universe is not a separate entity from all that exists but the abstract concept by which we mean all that exists. This is the core of the matter.

   Most people believe (the word here taken in the sense of accepting what has no proof) that the universe has an external cause. By doing so they neither understand the concept itself nor what it stands for. Religions are built on this ignorance, which allowed them to obtain, in the run of time, a very handsome "fringe" benefit by keeping people ignorant: high positions, money extracted by force and fraud by them and their ally, government, from the productive part of the population. Their power rests on a fantasy (The figure of a high-ranking religious representative of any religion past or present looking down at a tiny boy comes to mind, the priest saying: "So you don't believe in publicity? Then how can you explain that millions of people believe in a product they have never seen?"). They are not interested to make people knowledgeable for this would kill their foothold on people's naivety and/or ignorance. Since Ayn Rand developed the Philosophy of Objectivism, the big show down is at hand, and the winner already decided. This can be avoided, of course, but the result would be, due to the facts mentioned above, the end of mankind.
As psychologist Nathaniel Branden said, there is no way out from the universe: "You cannot leave it, whether left nor right, above, under or "below".
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Though the word "God" means a lot of different things (and often very contradictory things) to different people, it always relates to something supernatural, most of the times in the shape of an old bearded man covered with a Greek toga (Xenophanes expressed this by saying that "if oxen or horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the forms of their gods like horses, and oxen like oxen and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds"). This "supernatural" power would have had to exist in a "void", that is, it would have had to be "outside" of the universe itself (all that exists).

   Let's reduce this to the final end point from another angle. As said before we confront a contradiction since it is maintained that it was this "God" which "made" existence out of nothing. As existence means all there is, the notion of "God" produces a "double" existence: "God" and the universe, which is, as shown before, a contradiction of terms. Either "God" or the universe is defined as all that is. To take "God" as the definition of all that exists produces in its turn a further contradiction. The universe was not "created" for would it have been, it would have had to be created from an impossible place lying outside of the universe. As we have already seen such a point cannot exist even in imagination for to have existed "outside" of the universe it would, due to definition, have been automatically part of the universe. Hence, "God" is a fraud developed by the human mind as a way of explaining what was unexplainable at a time when men were still closer to the irrational animals than to what man is by definition: a being with the faculty of reason. Ayn Rand considered religion to be an early form of philosophy, an initial intention to understand the universe. Out of this effort, religion tried to construct a sense for man’s being and supplied a very rudimentary standard of ethics.

   The additional fraud of stating that this so-called "God" is unknowable entails again a contradiction which whoever coined the hoax (Plato and Kant among them) was either unaware of or, else, a liar himself since how can the notion of "God" even be conceived, if it is unknowable. Everything knowable can be known and understood. The unknowable means that it cannot even be known as unknowable and, thus, cannot be described since describing the "unknowable" would mean that we know it. Incongruities sum up and make it unnecessary to spend more time with them. Remember, whenever a contradiction pops up, at least one of the premises on which it rests is wrong. We will have a good example of this when we come to speak of Olbers' paradox.

   A short commentary of what many people mean when they say that they "feel" that "something different" or "higher" exists that they cannot prove: Feelings, capriciousness and desires belong to the area of psychology but not to the hard world of facts. Feelings are not the proper tools to reach truth. As Ayn Rand demonstrated in her book "For the New Intellectual", emotions cannot be used to obtain knowledge. In order to avoid any confusion in this matter a clear distinction must be drawn between what one thinks and what one feels. Against the contention that this would require omniscience, she stated that an individual must only be fully conscious of what he knows and understand the difference existing to what he feels. One must differentiate between one's thoughts and one's feelings, wishes, hopes and fears with full clarity and precision. Only a rejection of any contradiction involved is required and this means that a full philosophical knowledge is unnecessary.

   To clean the road from unnecessary ballast let us look at another question, which comes up from time to time (often among scientist who study the composition of the universe but are unaware of the use and meaning of definitions): parallel "universes"[9]. Are they possible? Can there be infinite repetitions of the same or opposing variations in different areas of the universe? This fantasy is based on two mistaken concepts: One is Plato's concept that the universe is not what it is but an image of ideal forms (whatever such things may be) reflected onto our "imperfect" world as if this were a distorted image of a "real" world existing somehow separately from what exists ("outside the universe", let us remember!). This fantasy sustains that our universe is not real. The "real" form of these ideal forms is unknowable; we can only "suspect" what they may look like in "reality". But how can we even "suspect" what is unknown and unknowable?. Here we are back, with other words, at Kant's notion of both the intention of knowing the unknowable and the doubling notion of the universe (all that is) and something else. The statement of suspecting what is beyond does not turn the idea beyond into a more knowable form; it continues to be unknowable.

   Let us not juggle with words but keep to strict definitions. We have analyzed this already and do not need to repeat it.

   A further mistaken concept is that the universe is not all there is but that other universes exist as well. This fantasy builds up on the two points just mentioned. To accept this we have to forget again the definition of universe or redefine the concept of universe not as the whole of what exists but only as part of what exists. To do so would require, we went into this before already, the coining of a new term signifying precisely what we now define as universe: the whole of existence. The senselessness of doing this has also been analyzed already. It is a useless exercise since the definition of what the universe is exists already. Many authors smuggle their fantasies of "parallel" worlds by leaving aside the definition of universe. It is only an interesting theme for science fiction.

   But what is allowed for science fiction is not allowed for authors who want to be taken seriously, like Stephen Hawking, mentioned before, who leaves without mention the term "universe" in the glossary of his book, which proves that a hoax is being perpetrated here so as to allow the author to roam around with his belief in "God". It is precisely at the end of his book that Hawking, like Beadle in his "The Language of Life" comes up with his "intention" to discover "God's" plans". Here, in a roundabout way, he demonstrates that this statement is a hoax perpetrated against thinking minds.

   But what of cloning, the modern reader might now say. Could we not clone a new universe out of parts of the existing one? I do not need to enter into this faulty notion since we have stated already often enough what the term universe means. On the other side, we can create things out of other things in the universe. I have mentioned this too also. In fact, we do it permanently, and industry is the clearest example of what is meant by it. However, this must exclude any possibility of cloning a universe within the universe, as this is contradictory and anachronistic. Further on, to request the creation of a second universe (which is totally contradictory) from "outside" the universe is not just an impossible, since the universe is all that is or exists, but on top of it a total senselessness.

   In addition, even cloning itself is not a perfect duplication of something, however much this may be wanted. One given atom (or quark, if you so wish) cannot be at the same time another itself. A is A and nothing can be A and non-A at the same time. A perfect duplication would be an itself of itself in all senses involved. This is rendered impossible by the mere fact that even if it were so the duplication of itself would be made by atoms (or quarks) which would have to be the same as the ones making up the original but who would be, since being other atoms, not be the original ones. A copy of the original is NOT the original, as any expert in art will tell you. A further original of the original cannot exist but only a copy of the original made of other atoms of the same sort as the original but, in themselves, being other atoms of the same sort as the ones composing the original but not these themselves. Every cloning is only a copy of the original by using a further quantity of matter, each atom or quark being an original of itself but not an original of the original.

   Further on, the cloned object or subject would exist separately from its original and would face different circumstances. Moreover and given the infinite accumulation of possible circumstances and decisions, which the original would have to face, just as many would be faced by the "exact" duplicate. The clone would face just as many different situations and challenges and then, if it were a living being, develop solutions different from those decided by its original twin. No circumstances are exactly alike. Hence, each circumstance requires a different solution. This, in itself, should give much material of thought for lawyers insisting on antecedent cases! No case equals another one.
Even at this level, the principle of individuality operates. Each living being develops, when confronted with given circumstances, different solutions (decisions) which would be or, at least, could be, in the case of a clone, different from those of the original. No circumstance is perfectly alike and, thus, reality constantly demands different decisions. Due to what has just been mentioned and separately from the definition itself a duplication of the universe is not possible. This implies also that a repetition of the universe – after each Big Bang – does not allow a change in the basic characteristics of matter since these are always the same in all their possible forms, including the various laws of nature and ways of behavior, past, present or future.

   Apart from this, the structure of the universe is such that it makes an identical reproduction of events and circumstances impossible. As Isaac Asimov clearly mentioned in one of his scientific articles, a person can be a businessman, a father, a lover, a son but not live all these aspects at the same spot and time. In its most extreme form an accident that would affect the original or its duplicate would not happen at the same time to the "twin", and even if it would affect both the original and the clone at the same time the outcome for either could be different to each. Even more, if both were to die, to put a radical example to the test, death would affect different subjects since both the original and the clone are, in themselves, unrepeatable individuals by the mere fact that while the elements composing them are the same, the atoms are not. They are separate atoms of the same kind. The possible combinations of molecules making up the original and the clone are never the same nor can they be. Just one atom differently ionized suffices, already at the level of the mere combination of elements, to identify both as separate individuals. Beside this, countless other differences would apply.

   This pertains to the inanimate form as well, of course. No rock is exactly like another one, and even if it were so, it would be composed of other atoms even though the same amount of elements where present in both rocks. Nothing can be the same at different places and at the same time nor can an atom or a quark be like another. It is another atom or quark already by its mere existence.

   However, this is not really the essence of what those pointing to cloning the universe refer to. They really mean that they would like to clone the universe out of nothing. We have touched this theme already too often. It is, for the delight of all science-fiction fans, a perfect theme for novels and stories; it triggers the imagination and fantasy of countless writers that obtain their living from presenting us with the exquisite infinity of plots, which the theme allows for sheer fantasy. But, definitively, it does not relate to the serious theme we are dealing with here.

   A word of advise must be included here: Whoever wants to prove that 'God' "created" the universe cannot start from the dogma of saying "'God' exists" and proceed from there on. He must, from the very start, demonstrate the true existence of the being or entity he is using as the basis for what he intends to prove. Relying on a dogma clashes totally with the definition of what the universe is. Since a dogma cannot be proved – else it would not be a dogma but an axiom, i.e. something that must not be proved since one can deictically point at it – the expounder must then abandon any hope to prove his thesis for it is based on nothingness. As philosopher Ayn Rand declared in "Atlas Shrugged", he will have "to expound no theories and die."

    Now we can turn specifically to our main theme. What refers to religions and "spiritual philosophies" has been covered from all angles. As a consistent atheist, I do not return to any of these points. Just for the record, I want to state that it is unnecessary to further deal with beliefs that contain their own destruction.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

[1] This is wordplay for, since the impossible does not exist, it is unnecessary to make any effort to erase it. It is still intellectually required to "erase impossibilities" as most people accept the impossible as existing.
[2] "Objectivism – The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.
[3] This relates specifically to the subversion of the definition of the term existing in the Spanish language, as mentioned already in chapter 1.
[4] The objection that the universe – real existence - was made by "God" starting from a spiritual level is invalid since such an influence had to act and, thus, operate, on a material level. This puts us back at the beginning ("What is, is", etc.), as we shall see immediately, since it could not remain spiritual while acting materially. In addition, the same considerations apply to the "spiritual" as well as to the "material": from "where" would the spiritual have come in the first place? If the universe were a spiritual creation (as would be required in this assumption) it would have to be an all-spiritual "creation" and could not be material in any way and vice versa. It is or, as Aristotle would have said, which clears the contradiction.
On the other hand, it is very well possible to create something that has not existed before, though for this being possible raw materials must already exist. Mankind constantly produces new things by inventing new ways of mixing existing materials or producing even new materials out of existing ones (plastics, for example) which are then produced, sold, used, etc.
[5] "Not being" can be used, of course, in another context also, then involving something existing, like "He is no longer alive".
[6] However, most of the time we have a tendency of seeing change to be external to us, in a way like an eighty year old man who sees again a friend of his youth and exclaims: "My, oh, my, how have you changed since I've seen you last time sixty years ago."
[7] From "Atlas Shrugged", Part III, Chapter VI (Random House)
[8] From the "Intellectual Ammunition Department", by Nathaniel Branden ("The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 5, May 1962). Many requests, like the one demanding an origin of the universe are also related with the peculiarity of the languages which allow the composition of grammatically correct but logically incorrect statements, such as: "What, on the planet, lays north of the North pole or south of the South pole?" or "What form has a round square?"
[9] Here too and once again we start with the scientists’ lack of concern for the meaning of the definition of universe, that is that it means "all that exists". Undisturbed by this scientists and philosophers as well are smuggling into our minds an impossible repetition of the term (Twice everything that exists).

Discuss this Article (30 messages)

1. ERASING IMPOSSIBILITIES[1]

1. ERASING IMPOSSIBILITIES [1]