Monday, September 1, 2008

More Poetry

Once again, I express obscure metaphysical notions through poetry. Today, I discuss the idea of separation and notions of the finite, infinite, and infinitesimal.

A Poetic Response to John Donne

Is every man but an island unto himself,
Or are all a piece of the collective main?
Are we but atolls adrift upon the wholly
Infinite sea connected but by bridges lain
By work not of our hands but our hearts unfurled?
Is instead one life but a portrait, a window
Through which the whole of life, in both its turmoil and
Tranquility, is surreptitiously revealed?
Some may say separation is an illusion,
While others posit the opposing delusion.
Neither vantage or musing is wholly complete,
And with absolute ignorance are both replete,
For you see, my brethren, we are at once whole
And yet are a part of the universal soul.

The Universe in Fire and Fire in the Universe

I see ahead a fire upon my path.
Light does it give, illuminating streams
That are themselves but waves, just as the
Waves of the vast and burgeoning sea which reams
Upon the shoreline of the infinite.
I am grasped in the grand totality
Of the universe which in its vastness
Consists of structures of such temporality.
Yet the laws from which such smallness are derived,
Which our science ardently discovers
And fields such as chemistry do posit
Reactions our observations uncover,
Allow combustion, explaining in math,
Why I see ahead a fire upon my path.

Friday, August 29, 2008

The Purposes of this Blog - A Pretty Unimportant Post

This blog exists primarily as a complement to my YouTube channel. Sometimes I copy some of what I feel are my more interesting and important ideas, or some of my poetry, onto this blog, to give them more concrete documentation. At other times, I may use this blog to script, in a concrete and structured form, ideas for videos.

A Little Stroll Through Philosophical Cosmology

I'd like to talk about space, time, and the beginning of the universe, but primarily about time.

The way I see it, there are two distinct possibilities for time. Either one can trace time infinitely far back into the past, or one can only trace time a finite distance into the past. Both of these present interesting problems and raise several speculative questions.

If time can stretch infinitely far into the past, then how are we here? If we are infinitely far ahead of the "beginning" of time, then how is it that we can exist? After all, if after an eternity, time ends, then time will NEVER end, so if an infinite number of events had to precede our existence, they would never have stopped playing out, and so we wouldn't exist.

If time had a beginning, then it is safe to say that there was nothing before that beginning, because some time reference is necessary in order for any sort of causality. Nothing can happen, as there is no time in which it could happen and all events create changes in the environment around them, thus because change is impossible without an "after" state to be changed into, it is safe to say that nothing happened before time. Asking what was before time would be like asking what's North of the North Pole, it doesn't make any sense. Thus, nothing could have made time come into existence.

Now, if time did have a beginning, then its coming to be was without cause. How far back would it have spontaneously happened? Was time created at the big bang, or was there some type of time reference before the big bang occurred?

Some scientists believe that there was a collision of two p - branes (Some really complex string theory. P - branes are contorted p dimensional objects that are purported to exist according to string theory.) that caused the big bang. Well, by that conception, even if our current space-time perspective didn't exist when this collision occurred, some temporal reference, and for that matter some spacial reference, must have existed during said collision. Other cosmologists, like Stephen Hawking, tend to believe that there was no time before the big bang.

And herein lies the problem. Either we must accept that there is some temporal reference, which may or may not be our own in this universe, that extends infinitely far into the past, or we must accept that some temporal reference, which again, may or may not be our own, came into existence without prior cause, as cause requires time. Both of these propositions are difficult to accept, but clearly, one of them must be true, as they are the only two logical possibilities.

Others suggest that we introduce a god into the equation to explain the origins of time. However, not only does this not answer the question of where time came from, it also raises further questions, of particular interest the question of "From whence cometh God?"

There are three possible answers to this question. The first is that God came into existence through some as-of-yet not understood natural process. This obviously doesn't answer the question of the origins of time, as time would have to have preceded this god in order for such processes to bring it into existence. At best, this god could be an explanation for the origins of time in our universe.

The second and third possibilities are that God always existed, or that God came into existence without a cause, but these are just the same problems as before with a god replacing time. It is quite clear that a god capable of creating entire universes would be vastly more complex than time. After all, even we simple humans are far more complex than space-time.

So, if God could have always existed, or if God could come into existence without cause, why couldn't the same be applied to time, especially since time is a much simpler entity for whose existence a vast body of evidence and theory exists, which is more than we can say for a god. Furthermore, how could God exist outside of space or time? How could God decide to create time while existing in the absence of time? These two questions are far more complex than the problems presented by the two views of time.

All in all, the origin of time is a question for which we do not currently posses the tools to answer and for which we may never posses the tools to answer. Perhaps it will always be a mystery to us. Whether or not it will always be a mystery, it is obvious that it currently is a mystery, so all of this work is pure speculation. The only thing that is known is this: either time always existed or it had a beginning.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Why is Truth Important?

In general, I feel that there are three important questions that everyone must answer. What is the truth? What is the meaning of life. What is the purpose of my life? In order to establish any idea of meaning, we must first know the truth. This is quite obvious if you think about it.

In a universe where Earth is at the very center, and all celestial objects revolve about it, we would consider the Earth and its inhabitants to be of central importance to the grand structure of things. However, the Earth is not even at the center of the solar system, which is itself not even close to the center of the galaxy, a galaxy that is extremely far from the center of the universe.

Other scientific knowledge about reality and about ourselves, such as how the universe came to be, how life came to be, how humanity came to be, and the science of psychology all have very profound implications for the philosophical establishment of the meaning of life.

It should also be obvious that in order to find the purpose of your life, it is necessary to first establish the overall meaning of life. How do I answer the question of meaning?

Well, based on my scientific knowledge about the Big Bang, galaxy, star, and planet formation, and evolutionary theory, it seems that the universe has no special "preference" for living material over non-living material. (preference is in quotes because the universe has no conscious desires) In fact, if anything, the "preference" of the universe seems to be in the opposite direction. Thus, I conclude that there is no objective meaning to life! But fret not, this is not as depressing as it seems.

Because there is no objective meaning, we are free to give meaning to life through our subjective lenses. We do this in many ways, through the laws of a society, through the culture of a society, through various subjective philosophical meanings ascribed to life, etc.

Based on this answer, I conclude that we are also free as individuals to decide the purpose in our own lives. It would be so much easier if we were simply given a purpose, but there's a certain beauty to the fact that we have such freedom. Life needs no objective, external meaning, it is beautiful and fulfilling enough to exist on its own.

I also made a YouTube video on this subject. Check it out here.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Two Short Poems

Just two short unstructured poems that I wrote. Don't expect great literary value.

I Am Truth

I am truth, illumination of minds without darkness,

A conceit to some, but paramount to those of free minds,
Meticulously reflecting on states of their being and


That being which in contemplation is duly christened
Reality, the shared experience of all those minds
Unhindered by delusion or those philosophies which
Take as absolute the lack of my totality and
Hold me not as basis of all things, mortal and endless.

I am truth.

I Am Beauty

I am beauty, that which is said to be only

A truth in the eyes of the beholder. I can
Manifest in myriad morphologies and

Bemuse, bewilder, and befuddle any so
Enamored ecstatically with my existence.
An auspicious accident ardently allows
Undoubting universal utterance of my
Tautologically tantalizing tectonics,
Yet all know of my capricious vicissitudes.

I am beauty.

An Breif Introduction

Hello, my name is Chris, but you can call me Unhealthy Truthseeker. Yes, Truthseeker is not an actual word, I know. I coined the term myself. It is my personal philosophy, and refers to an individual who seeks truth at all cost to comfort and stability of world view. If something that I believe is shown to be wrong or at least questionable, I abandon it. Also, yes, I do believe in absolute truth.

I believe that there is a fundamental underlying reality that exists independent of us and our thoughts and observations. Any fact about this absolute reality would be an absolute truth. Now, some question if we can ever know this absolute truth, but that is an epistemological question, not a question of existence.

Personally, I believe that the constantly self-correcting and self-updating scientific method allows us to asymptotically converge upon true reality. Of course, this means that we will never be absolutely sure of just what is absolute reality, but 99.99999999% certainty and even 99.99999999999999999999999999% certainty is possible.

This video offers a deeper insight of my personal beliefs about the nature of truth.