https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/19520

Found this

Quantum computers now can do calculations billions of times faster than supercomputers now. They abide by a contradiction of math, schrodingers cat

Mathematics says that objects are made of an infinity of zeros. So nothing, through the medium of infinity, creates something. Is this accurate?

*in

Heidegger in Discourse on Thinking talks of regioning. We can only think I'm space and nature. Nature includes nothing\zero, so we can't think without nothing it would appear

Awesome

The first movement of the universe is beyond math, unless you are a Pythagorean

Every shred of absolute time has to be abandoned in order to make sense of the universe without positing an eternity of time

Lenin lived in an age when the Catholic church was reaffirming Aristotle. Contradictions in science abound. GR vs QM for example. Or the zero energy universe. To contradict the fact that we can't have no energy could lead us to the power of voidness

Descartes thought the truths of the world and mathematics were contingent and dependent on God, who could have made them differently. Hegel took this further and said all logic was the same. Yet concept of the the Absolute in Hegel's thought would seem to imply that there is a hyper-truth within the unity of the Absolute. So there would be ultimately one thing that was true. Everything else is a movement ("negative"). "In the COLOR of the Lord" Eric Clapton? Which color?

Descartes thought we had an innate knowledge of God. This is either because of his birth or his dad. Do we get the sense that the world and our ideas come from God through the fact we come out of someone, or is it because of the father???

Marx, a better mathematician than Hegel, accepted his philosophiy but substituted energy and matter for spirit in the system. Marx immersed himself in Cartesian flux

Descartes is a platonist, for whom the world is in constant flux and to us is Maya

Kant had the innate powers of Time and Space. Plato had the infinity of innate Ideas. Kant thought the noumena unknownable. Plato rejected the noumena. His noumena, unlike Kants, was of another world

An important point comes out of comparing Plato and Kant. Who is more a Rationalist

Hegel “Contradiction is the root of all movement and all vitality: it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity.”

Schelling “Contradiction alone brings life even into the first necessary nature, which we have considered merely conceptually until now.”

Aristotle "to maintain that being and non-being are identical, is to admit permanent repose rather than perpetual motion.

Lenin wanted his scientists to find the material contradiction through which matter moves, and disprove Aristotle. The paradox of zero temperature might be the secret to perpetual motion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_deities

To Heidegger, the atom bomb represented the Sun. Tonight I am watching the Penrose/Craig debate! I have two observations that I think are relevant. First, maybe the worldflows from the Forms of math. Second, if the Lord created out of nothing, then morality is out of nothing and the Lord could in reality be evil. So I side with matter, who is never malicious per se

Causes don't exist say Buddhism. If consciousness can be from a brain and if the world can come from a singularity, matter can move without spacetime. We can't sense space-time, so its a religious thing from Einstein.

Someday, either in the past or future, everyone faces a moral choice that they can't help but believe the are free towards

Where does the world come from in solipsism if nothing comes from nothing

Free will is not creation out of nothing. Once a brain is formed, that ontology IS free will. The brain doesn't emit freedom. It is freedom, it is free

How do we know what free will is if we have never had it?

Maybe the causa sui is we, as Fitche thought. And as he rejected the thing in itself, can we then abandone the idea of space-time and say matter moves mysteriously without it? For is consciousness can come from a brain, then why can't water suddenly stand up and talk? Not the right chemicals?

The aesthetics of Marxism would seem to say that consciousness doesn't arise from the body but IS the body. One the arrangement is right, the ontology is right

What if Kant was right? Of course he tends toward solipsism, which first Fichte and then Schelling and Hegel tried to remedy. But even from a materialist perspective it can be asked "how do you know you alone don't have the consciousness gene?" Sartre thought shame proved this to be absurd.

The Hebrew Bible speaks of the Void. Genesis 1:2. It does not say the Void was good though. The book first speaks of "the good" with regard to light, the only consistent substance in the universe. But of course it does say that light existed before the stars.

Schelling, after studying Kant's dynamics, concluded that first there was force, then space and time, and then light and gravity. There are also Hobbes's physical views

Maybe order is in the eye of the beholder

In saying that consciousness comes from a brain, we seem to be saying even more of matter than saying the big bang caused itself. Consciousness is such a subtle thing. If matter can do this, it seems its way more mystical than we thought. Cartesian extension would be dead

So if there is nothing outside the universe, there is nothing then to make it contingent and it would be necessary. Dr. William Craig disagrees with this I know, but I don't know his arguments against it

People are saying silly things, as always happens in discussion on abortion.

It's spatiality doesn't matter. It's nature matters. Abortion after the child can be a premie is murder, plain and simple.

The fate of fetuses before that is very analogous to the fate of aliens at our hands. So far every species we know is lower than us intelligence. Aliens change all that

No

Is it wrong to kill aliens if it's to our advantage? I think abortion is wrong if the child can live on it's own (that is, could be a premie). That seems obvious. Just because it's in the mother, that doesn't change the ontology. The alien question is interesting though. They have life, consciousness, and reason perhaps. But what if they are running around our towns causing fear? I bet Christians will get their guns out

Compatibilism, when it says that free will is destined to act as it does by matter, makes us completely at the mercy of whatever matter wants to do

Hume followed Hobbes's mechanism, which is why motion was mysterious to Hume. Mechanism has the universe working like a clock, without forces. With General Relativity and Hawking's no boundary proposal, Hume's dream of a physics untouched by metaphysics was realized

"nature is free" Hegel in his first book

Just because regularity has happened in this Eon doesn't mean it will be the same tomorrow, or that other dimensions won't blend with ours. Ron, you need to thing about that awhile, and then you can kick the whole "law" idea out at the end of the syllogism and reach a more mystical mentality. Anybody who defends common sense as reality is insane or hypnotized by themselves or another person. Hume called Spinoza's doctrine a monstrosity, but he wasn't far from its aesthetic.

Another problem with science is that it says that two identical things will always act in the same way. This is an assumption. Two things are at least in different places, which can affect how they act.