Unum

For the sake of this discussion I will make one assumption: that there is something. This assumption, as far as I can tell, is unavoidable within the limits of our human reality, as reality itself is unprovable using current logical methods. For to prove reality, we are required to use reality to do so. This, as you can obviously see, is considered a circular proof and hence illogical according to currently accepted logic. The same problem creeps up in my use of language and/or words for my definitions. To define language and/or words I am required to use language and/or words for the definition. In other words, I am using the thing that I am defining in the definition. This, again, is illogical as it is considered a circular definition. At least one assumption must be made. With that in mind, I will present to you my evidence for the One.

According to <a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">m-w.com</a> entity is defined as "something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality". A human can be considered an entity. However, this human entity encompasses many other entities. Each individual cell that makes up the physical aspect of a human can also be considered an entity. This cell entity also encompasses many other entities such as mitochondria, golgi apparatus, nucleus, etc. These entities encompass other entities, such as molecules. Molecule entities encompass atom entities. Atom entities encompass things such as sub-atomic particles. Sub-atomic entities encompass such things as quarks. Quark entities might encompass things such as vibrating strings (according to current theory). As you can see, a human can be considered it's own, individual, unique entity, yet be composed of smaller entities. When I refer to a particular human entity, in effect, I am referring to all the sub-entities in their particular configuration that make this person up. The thing is, this parent-child entity relationship doesn't just end at humans. A human entity can also be considered encompassed by the city entity that they live in. This city entity not only encompasses all the humans that live with in it's borders, it also encompasses the buildings within it, the land it occupies, the products it produces, etc. This city entity can then be encompassed by a state entity (at least in the US). The state entity can be encompassed by a country entity. The country entity can be encompassed by a continent entity. The continent entity can be encompassed by a planet entity. A planet entity can be encompassed by a solar system entity. A solar system entity can be encompassed by a galaxy entity. A galaxy entity can be encompassed by the universe entity. As far as we currently know, the universe entity is the final parent entity. This universe entity is singular, as it encompasses everything. It literally is the only One. It is everything we know, everything we think of and everything that is. It is our reality. This uppermost singular entity is the greatest entity, as it encompasses the greatest amout of other entities. In fact, there can be nothing greater. Because this entity encompasses everything it also encompasses all things. By encompassing all things that have power, it is all-powerful. By encompassing all things that have knowledge, it is all-knowing. By encompassing all things that are truth, it is the absolute truth. Everything you sense, including yourself, is a revelation of the One. This revelation is universal to all people, at all times. Everything we say, everything we do, everything we try to explain points toward the One. Whether the explanation be religious, philosophical, or scientific matters not, as they are all attempts at explaining the One. It is the only thing we know and it is the only thing we can even attempt to explain.

In summary, if there is something then it follows from evidence that there is One entity that encompasses all of that something. This One entity would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty and absolute truth. It would be the greatest something could be. This entity would have many equivalent names, yet none of them would describe it exactly, because it would be all of them.

Peace,

Unum

Philosoft

This is the problem with induction. In any case, the hidden assumption here is that everything (all somethings) plus the "One entity" is all that "exists." You have no way to preclude the existence of the "One entity" itself within a greater entity without simply taking the above assumption as axiomatic.

<strong> This might be true, but I would like see an argument rather than an assertion.

<strong> I must admit, I find this an interesting idea. It is possible that the whole of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts, but it does not tell us anything about what sort of emergent properties this meta-entity might have.

K

Unum:

I don't see how it follows that because the universe encompasses things with trait x, it must be all-x.

The universe encompasses things that are not true. Does that make the One all-false?

The universe encompasses things that are tiny. Does that make the One all-miniscule?

The universe encompasses things that are ugly. Does that make the One all-revolting?

Jobar

Hello Unum; welcome to Internet Infidels. Seems like we are breaking out in pantheists all over the place!

Here's where the problem lies:
"A galaxy entity can be encompassed by the universe entity. As far as we currently know, the universe entity is the final parent entity. This universe entity is singular, as it encompasses everything. It literally is the only One. It is everything we know, everything we think of and everything that is. It is our reality. "

The universe is the word we use for the totality of what we observe, certainly. Trouble is, we cannot say what, if anything, lies beyond our observations! We can't know (at least at present) if the universe is contained within a multiverse, as posited by the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics; we have no ways to determine that.

I too think that the nature of our observable universe makes the hypothesis of an ultimate unity a valid one- but we can't say it is proven. It may be true, but impossible to ever prove!

Guttersnipe

Not quite certain on what you mean by 'reality'. Are you referring to the existence of objective bodies, minds, etc.? What about current mental states? Do we even need an argument to know what our mental states are?

While you do use words to define words, this is not an example of circularity because the act of stipulating or defining a term is not an argument. Circularity occurs only when the conclusion is contained in one (or more) premises.

Interesting. A couple of points: 1)Though various parts of this One entity may be conscious and self aware, it doesn't follow that this One entity is as well. Cities contain numerous conscious entities, yet a city itself is not aware. 2)The entity you are describing (the universe) is not in any way incompatible with atheism. Atheism is the belief that *God* does not exist, and your beliefs concerning this One entity do not posit it as the creator of the universe, which is one of God's essential attributes.

Llyricist

1) But the various entities that comprise a human can have no awareness of the human's awareness, the nerve ending sending its pulse of electricity, the blood cell carrying oxygen to other cells in the body, etc..

Humans interect with eachother and their surroundings in the same way, along with all the plants and animals, along with all the planets and stars, along with all the galaxies and clusters, it IS possible, though not necessary, that the whole Entity DOES have awareness that we cannot, as mere messenger cells ourselves, have awareness of.

(dangit that's the second time today I couldn't think of a wording that didn't end in a preposition LOL)

2) You say po-tah-to we say po-tay-to. So Christians have a monopoly on the capitalized version of the word god? So what, if ya notice, at no time did Unum use that word, in fact he said straight out he had no word to describe it. It is also why Jobar and I, at least, put atheist first in our profile (and by the way, I hadn't seen Jobar's profile when I registered, and was pleasantly surprised he had done the same thing).


Welcome Unum, Great post!

Philosoft

Llyricist,

As an aside, I think the word "God" should be left to the Judeo-Christian faction. They are apparently obsessed with having a god named God; I suppose they think it gives them some kind of semantic legitimacy to claim that their God is the god. I'm sure clever pantheists can come up with a less pretentious moniker for whatever it is they believe in.

Guttersnipe

It is epistemically possible, but my point was that the conclusion (that the One entity is conscious) would not follow from the fact that parts of it are. I'm not certain that Unum was making such an argument, but that's the impression that I got.

Context -- she/he said that no name could describe the One because "it would be all of them". He also listed a few attributes of the One: All-powerful, all-knowing, and absolute truth. These attributes, as you probably know, are often those attributed to the *theistic* God. (In addition to perfectly good, creator of the world, and eternal.) The Christian God posits some extra characteristics, but I'm not going to get into that. I did make a point in passing about Unum's idea being consistent with atheism -- I didn't mean to presume that she/he was making an argument for theism, but frankly, I wasn't sure so I wrote it anyway.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Guttersnipe ]</p>

Unum

What specifically is the problem with my induction?

It is not everything plus the "One entity" is all that exists, it is everything is the "One entity" and that is literally the all that exists. It is impossible for me to even comprehend something that doesn't exist, for the moment I comprehend it, it exists. I'm not sure if this answers your concerns, as I'm not entirely sure what you meant.

I made my argument earlier in the piece. The One entity is all things. It contains all things that have power. In other words, all power is encompassed by this entity, hence it is all-powerful. The same applies to all the other attributes.

It actually tells us a lot of what properties this entity would have. Patterns that we see in the very small, would be the same patterns we see in the very large and everywhere in between, including the patterns that govern and help explain human behavior. There are many other implications of this One entity that I will try to touch on in another post. I'm curious to see where this one goes and I don't have the time right now to adequately respond to two concurrent posts.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

It doesn't just encompass things with trait x, it encompasses all things with trait x.

Yes, it is all true and all false at the exact same time.

Yes and no. Tiny is a subjective word that requires an opposite for it to make sense. It does encompass all things that are tiny, but it also encompasses all things that are not tiny as well.

If you see everything as ugly, then yes, it could be considered all-revolting.

Peace,

Unum