| Challenge the Philosophy Competition 2 - Entries 21-22 |
Definitions of principal terms used in the competition:
"We are [more reasonably]": limited knowledge of who we are which is more sound and consistent than antagonistic limited knowledge of who we are. (Limited knowledge
refers to knowledge that is not completely known.)
“I'm stabbing in the dark, I admit, but let me give it a shot. Causal infinity implies that there is no beginning and no end. I assert the necessity of a beginning on the grounds that it's necessary to existence. If there is no beginning, then there is existence with an infinite amount of time before this moment. (I'm going to start playing with numbers now...it shouldn't be hard to find my fallacy...but I don't know what it is, yet) Call that time P minus infinity. In order for P to be the present, as it was defined, an infinite amount of time has to have already passed. Since it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to ever pass, there must have been a beginning to the universe. Also it's not entirely causal, because there are random events, quantum fluctuations, but that's not really important.”
Dwight E. Coats March 14 2004
The problem with your position is that you are assuming “P” is an end-in-itself, thereby establish the distinction with infinity and ground for beginning and end. However, the conception of causal infinity contends that “P” is infinite, and therefore there is no result from “P” (infinity) minus infinity. The challenge you face is more reasonably demonstrating that “P” is not infinite. Arguments supporting the infinity of “P” or any other conscious entity can be viewed at supporting arguments.
Random events and quantum fluctuations, being conscious phenomenon, are subject to causality no matter how subtle.
“Since all things animate or inanimate appear as an infinite cosmos only as a virtual reality on our mind screen, any reckoning or conjectures would be through a phantom called mind only. What therefore matters is only ‘to whom’ all such appearances or disappearances rather than what they are. While science explores objective knowledge, philosophy deals with the subjective element in trying to find a deeper meaning for our existence. In doing so, to say that by changing the individual everything else changes is correct as our actions obscured by the notional mind always corrupts, distorts, or disturbs causing pollution, noise, heat and so on. On the other hand if things around us change it may or may not always change the individual as it depends upon the level of ignorance due to one's notions by which we judge, compare, interpret, or extrapolate, always. For the awakened person, everything is like an illusion only and changing relationships wouldn't matter at all. Let us say the ignorant are in state zero and the enlightened are in state 1. Due to ignorance (not knowing or not having encountered the true state of ourselves) we keep adding zero after zero to the right side of one thus making the reality of only one, to appear as many by the perceptions and processing by the mind which is always divisive. 1 divided by 0 = infinity and the cosmos thus appears! For the wise and enlightened 1 always remain one and they reject the false as the false in a watchful state of constant awareness and add zero to the left of 1 1,01,001,0001,... = 1 always. Like a quantum jump they may choose to take part in the cosmic play or dance but they always manage to remain unaffected, come what may! To reach such a level of awareness starting from a deep state of ignorance requires contemplation hoping to remove layers of ignorance in an effort to recapture one's own childhood state of pure innocence, fearlessness, spontaneity, and lovability. In the process it is inevitable that we transcend barriers like ‘I’ ‘Me’ and come to realize that qualitatively all are no different from each other. Going one step further, all forms of life will look the same in a universal consciousness. Even inanimate things can be perceived in the same manner if only one is at the source of all existence. Connectedness and mutual influencing are just notions due to our being ignorant of what ‘is’.”
R. Rangan May 19 2004
Your notions of “state 1”, “universal consciousness”, “only one”, and “source of all existence” mean that, at least according to your position, there is an oneness or thing-in-itself as existence. However, this position from our comparative and (apparently) incomplete perspective is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitum (i.e. causal infinity).
If you refer to “the childhood state of pure innocence, fearlessness, spontaneity, and lovability”, then we require a more reasonable explanation for both your use of the term “pure”, and why the childhood state necessarily equates to an oneness of existence.
If you refer to the state of rapture (e.g. Entry 481 from Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1), then we require a more reasonable explanation for how your interpretation of your experience of rapture, or anyone else’s, proves an oneness of existence.
"We": the individuals who make up humanity.
"Human beings": the individual members of the human species who are generally defined by sentience, corporeal aspects (e.g. biological and neurological properties), and non-corporeal aspects (e.g. consciousness and life-force). Note, it is possible that consciousness and life-force, for example, may be corporeal aspects of human existence.
"Part": human beings as interconnected members of existence.
"Causal infinity": the unending interactive relationship between things. For further explanation, see causal infinity.
"Existence": the interaction between things based on an inexpressible force.
"Overcome": more reasonable refutation of the proposition, "we are [more reasonably] human beings who are part of the causal infinity of existence." "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries and
disputes submitted to this "Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the proposition can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them.)
21. Entry:
Response:
Supplementary comment:
22. Entry:
Response: