I was inspired by some recent discussions on the forum regarding independent existence and wanted to see what other philosophy might be germane. Starting with using basic reason, physicist Paul Davies writes (from The Mind of God/The Mystery at the End of the Universe):

It may seem as if the only alternatives are an infinite tower of turtles or the existence of an ultimate super turtle, the explanation for which lies within itself [mathematics/logical necessity/Ontological argument]. …Wheeler rejects completely the notion of eternal laws: The laws of physics cannot have existed from everlasting to everlasting. They must have come into being at the big bang. So, rather than appeal to timeless transcendent laws to bring the universe into being, Wheeler prefers …[PAP].

…. arrangements are founded on the assumption of human rationality: that it is legitimate to seek “explainations” for things, and that we truly understand something only when it is explained. Yet it has to be admitted that our concept of rational explanation probably derives from our observations of the world and our evolutionary inheritance. Is it clear that this provides adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions? Might it not be the case that the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense? This does not mean the universe is absurd or meaningless, only that an understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought.

With that, I was thinking about what transcends human thought, and how the notion of transcendence itself (Kant/Schop transcendental idealism) implies some ‘sense’ (pardon the pun) or conception of independent existence, much like how some physicist’s think about the laws of physics & nature (unchanging mathematical truths) existing independent of the human mind (?). I think Platonism also applies here... .

And also, much like the analogy of temporal time presumably starting at the big bang, and eternal time existing in eternity where at the speed of light time ceases to exist. And in theory a novel non-material consciousness has entered eternity as time is now infinite. (The past, present and future are all one at the speed of light.) Then, I thought about Schop’s the World as Will philosophy and how our conscious will (to live) itself, cannot be explained physically (versus Darwinian instinct).

Since there are other theories and philosophy that might be able to offer explanations for similar phenomena or questions that even hint to metaphysics and the nature of reality, I analogized to the foregoing comments about the limits of human reason, and wondered what the significance or implications of Glossolalia (speak-in-tongues) might be (even though it comes across as nonsense).

Is that a phenomenon, where if nothing else, does exist, and further suggests another logically possible world with its own set of logic and language? Is that a phenomenal manifestation of what Kant referred to as a noumenal world-concept or view? What kind of logic accounts for something outside of time to cause time itself (temporal v. eternal)? How does the concepts of logical necessity (mathematical truths/logic) and logically possible worlds fit into a proposed philosophy of Glossolalia?

Metaphorically, maybe Glossolalia is a kind of euphemism or cosmological language for some notion of turtle-talk :razz: I already see some paradox relative to human thinking and the whole idea of logically possible worlds and Multiverse theories, but would like to get some other free-form thoughts on the matter. I suppose some things in life are no less absurd than paradox itself but am not sure. .. .