By these rhetorical questions and answers, defined by us and our new philosophy, we intend to answer those both simple and complex questions. The paradox of the answers goes beyond the limited, conventional philosophies. Most of the times, these questions are unanswerable, or the answer is infinite, unlimited, as direction of research and not as an answer in the scientific or nonscientific sense. We are willing to answer simple questions coming from simple people, but also questions asked by learned people, not with a view to showing the quality of our philosophy, but because the question was and is on everybodyʼs lips, throughout the space/time that will come. The present answer is similar to the general question we have been always preoccupied with. ”Does God exist?” Whether theist or atheist, each tried or tries in his own way to find an answer. In the absence of the Unconventional/Philosophy, the question does not have an answer, although the answer of the Unconventional/Philosophy is just a direction and not an answer specific to science or nonscience. Similar to the theist God or the atheist infinite, the unlimited exists, but under the form of entities/universe beyond the limits of any entity/universe, that is beyond ourselves or the others. Our question and its answer are valid for both the theist and the atheist, due to the fact that the unlimited also contains the mathematical infinite and the God imagined throughout the centuries by the people. The infinite and God are reflections of the unlimited specific to the Unconventional/Entity/Universe and each of these reflections is limited by the existence of the system of reference that reflects it. Let us not mistake the infinite of our imagination or the God imagined by the people for the unlimited or the unlimited God, that can never be reflected or imagined. The theist or atheist images of the Unconventional/Entity/Universe are limited, whatever the nature of reflection or of the system of reference in relation to which they are reflected.
Dear Tudor Păroiu.
Before answering, I want to know what you are referring to when you write: "our new philosophy".
And to further clarify the picture, when you write: "In the absence of the Unconventional / Philosophy, the question does not have an answer, although the answer of the Unconventional / Philosophy is just a direction and not an answer specific to science or nonscience ". I wonder: Is there non-conventional Philosophy or not? there exists or not?
In the year 2011 we published the first paper, “Freedom/constraint as an unconventional reflection”, of the cycle “Reality and its unconventional reflection”. It was followed by the papers: “Form/existence/spirit”, ”Space/time/transformation” and the novel ”The Anonymous”, all form the same cycle. One of our research topics is “The Systematization of Philosophy”, in which we present the structural scheme of the Unconventional/Philosophy. Given the conditions where a structural scheme and a series of papers on this vertebral spine exists, I consider that the Unconventional/Philosophy exists. Now in an advance state, with the possibility of a publishing this year or at the beginning of 2018, the following will appear: Unconventional/Truth I and II and the first part of the Unconventional/Dictionary (letters A and B). Unfortunately only the papers The Anonymous and Freedom/Constraint are translated into English, the others being in course of translation. If the infinite from mathematics is used scientifically and it has the sense of unlimited, it is absurd to believe that the unlimited does not exist. Unfortunately, mathematics is a limited, specific science or philosophy, a ”mathematical reflection of reality” and it limits the phenomena to its possibilities and its relative. Just like how the mathematical infinite exists even if we cannot reach it, the same way in nature the unlimited exists even if we or others cannot reflect it. It is absurd to believe that an object or a matter/energy or a phenomena does not exist just because we cannot reach it in any way. And yet we can reach the unlimited just like we reach the infinite, by extrapolating our conventions beyond ourselves, into the unlimited.
Yes, as a Christian philosopher I believe the unlimited, or being-itself, exists and is the ground of being for all limited entities. Paul Tillich cashes out this idea in book one of his Systematic Theology.
Your question brought to mind the theory of the expanding universe. While oversimplifying the case, two aspects of this theory may be relevant. On the one hand, the universe as we know it appears to occupy a defined space (albeit measured in light years). However, it is an expanding entity that expands into a domain that is unknown until it is occupied by the known. This process invites reflection on what it means for there to be an existence outside of what is known. On the other hand, there is the possibility that "that which is known" may be limited to the degree to which it can expand and would - because of the laws of physics - cease to expand and perhaps collapse. If this is the case, then either a) we posit that there is an outer real limited to the universe and nothing else exists; or b) we agree that there may be a physical outer real limited to the universe but there remains a domain beyond which is unknown. As a Christian theist, I am inclined towards the second option.
Answer
I am sorry that I cannot answer you in time or present our actual research in time, but there are many questions and many things to say. Unfortunately I am not an English speaker, this forcing me to use a translator and to depend on his time.
Going back to the subject.
Given the conditions in which we accept the unlimited as an existence, of course in this version in which we can never reach it, we can just as well accept that God exists even if no one and nothing can ever reach him and even if we are not part of the unlimited or of God. Just like we say about God that He is not just existence, „He is”, meaning all that he is or that he is not yet or never was, just like our unlimited. Unfortunately God must be redefined for each religion, science or non-science, at least given two aspects. One aspect, because we confuse between our God, as an idea or reflection in our minds or in the mind of any universe/entity, and the God whom no one can ever reach. That God whom no one can ever reach is an unlimited God and a God with unlimited possibilities, while any idea or image or reflection of him is limited, relative and full of exceptions in rapport to the system of reference or the limits of any universe/entity as a system of reference. The second aspect is their morality, taking into account the limits of classic moral sense only as a positive of things and phenomena around us. If we accept the phrase ”He is” all that we are or that exists as a universe/entity, than we cannot exclude the non-morality of both things and phenomena around us. In conclusion, the limited God of our reflections and ideas can be positive or negative, but the God that is unlimited beyond us must be like its unlimited, both positive/negative simultaneously, meaning simultaneously moral/non-moral. I do not use the term immoral, since just like inexistence, the immorality imposes the lack of any morality, something which does not exist, there is no such thing as the total lack of morality and we cannot say that the non-morality or the negative of morality is its inexistence, just like we cannot say that beyond us there is inexistence. It is certainly a simultaneity and not white or black if we look carefully around us, outside or within each of us. On one side everything is simultaneously positive/negative which each universe/entity is sees as positive or negative in rapport to itself or another, as a system of reference. On the other side, we can see that the bible is not just moral as it accepts both hell and heaven as parallel existences, this telling us that mankind and humanity have guessed the existence of a simultaneity of good and bad, but it could not reflect it or defined it so far. That which we can say with the certainty of our relative is that the world, the whole universe, or as we call it the Unconventional/Universe/Entity, are simultaneously positive/negative, just like the theist God within us or beyond us or others.
Dear Mister Kelvin Mutter,
We are going to put forward several ideas on the evolution of the universe. The astrophysical singularities, already present in the researches carried out by the astrophysicists cannot be limited. A uniqueness such as the Big-Bang disappears sooner or later in an expansion and it will never regenerate, similar to the people, (or any other bigger or smaller entity/universe) who can be assimilated with such a uniqueness in expansion. If this uniqueness had been singular, we would not have existed, as our uniqueness, the Big-Bang would not have appeared within the unlimited space/time dimension that existed before and will continue to exist. According to the theist faith, God is allmighty, more precisely unlimited in terms of existence and phenomena. On the other hand, we limit the existence of any kind of uniquenesses. This has no logic. Furthermore, if God is everything and He can do anything, we must understand that He is positive/negative simultaneously and not just morally, all the more so as He comprehends both Hell and Heaven. There are not only good or only bad, only beautiful or only ugly things in the world. There is an entity/universe and the good and the bad simultaneously. They are all part of God, they are His creations. We have defined the Unconventional/Entity/Universe and we can also call it God, but this entity or the theist God is different from their image in our limited mind and spirit. That would be an exaggerated limitation. It would be as if we believed that we can comprehend the unlimited or the Unconventional/Entity/Universe, or God.
Yours respectfully,
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy