Chemical-Physical Reality Prelude: Observation
"I am," is a truly glorious statement.
And the next step that "I" take is acceptance of "you are," for you also have said "I am."
What is next?
"This is."
"What lies behind my eyes?"
"What lies out of sight?"
"What is beyond?"
Logical positivism is a path I nearly traverse, but I take a step upwards, into scientific philosophy:
Philosophy that must be tested in reality, and subjected to the scientific method, and that which can utilize scientifically verified facts.
If "I am," and "you are," then "we exist," must apply, and if "we exist" applies to humanity, and humanity is that which is produced by genetic code, then what is the status of existence of all genetically produced lifeforms?
Genetic code is chemical-physical in origin, and exists in reality, for it produces each of us, and those chemicals are that which make up the universe, for if we are chemical-physical in origin, then we are composed of the universe, thus the universe exists beyond us. The physical laws that appear to govern the movements of such chemicals are utilized to produce genetic code, which produces "I", and "you," and all life.
We must assume sanity and existence in an existing universe, lest our story ends, and suicide becomes preferable to a matrix existence.
Thus, we must establish chemical-physical reality.
So if we must assume without knowing that reality is as it appears to our senses, or at least takes some sort of shape that is existent in origin, even if misread utterly by our senses, we can at least test our philosophies using the substrate of reality as the testing ground. Look around you. What is there?
Don't be naive as to the existence of that which surrounds you. Madness is folly. We must be realistic here, and utilize that which we possess, no matter how limited it may be.
Have you ever tested an ethic? Have you ever built a machine that functions according to an ideal? Have you ever performed peer review regarding the physical existence of free will or deterministic will?
Have you ever experimented with truth?
There are concepts in this reality that go far beyond what humans can normally comprehend. There are greater perils than that which exist in current life and all of its permutations. There are heights greater than the mountains whose petty heights humans shy from. There are greater depths than the darkest oceans, which crush humans utterly.
There are ideas that have not yet been explored. Senses not yet felt. Emotions not yet experienced. Logic not yet formulated.
There are words not yet invented.
Thoughts not yet thought.
The configuration of knowledge as it appears to the human brain is chemical-physical in origin, so it must be assumed that there are near infinite possible thoughts. So our job is not yet done.
And thus it is my quest to shed more just than mere light upon these hidden aspects of reality. These heresies of reality must be unveiled, and the quest begins with dialectics and experimentation.
The question must first be asked before the answer is known.
But the answer is not one that can be chosen.
The true answer predetermines the right question.
~Kitten
Well written Sir! Will follow you for more. @heretickitten
Greetings @ddot
You write things that I can agree with but others that are quite off
there is no chemical interactions between particles WITHOUT electricity. Electricity is thus ALL that is.
Scientists have successfully stored computer files on a strand of DNA... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." said Arthur C. Clarke once
The problem with your empirical evidence is that you and I obviously do not share the same level of knowledge. I obviously know something you do not or do not want to see. The UNKNOWN rules everything so this means that we can only progress while not being able to prove entirely what we think is the truth. Empirical evidence cannot be, never be set in stone therefore.
But it all starts with the understanding of Natural Laws embedded in the universe, well known by Plato and Pythagoras, and many others. Even Euclid and Max Plank endorsed them. The Laws prove the Universe conscious
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness... Max Plank
You know, if we understand one question rightly, all questions are answered - Jiddu Khrishnamurti
that'd be an excellent debate, actually
Interesting thoughts. Philosophy and science use opposite reasoning to arrive at their conclusions: deductive and inductive logic. Testing deductive conclusion with inductive method seems difficult, if not impossible.
It is akin to testing mathematics in the real world. We may find that the mathematical formulae describe certain facets of our world, but the map is not necessarily the territory. The fundamental question of mathematics is: does mathematical order exist in reality or does the human mind impose mathematical order?
I recall a Japanese kid's anime "Heroic Age" toying with the above concept. Something along the line of an advanced being would be puzzled by the concept of mathematics, since numbers and equations are but arbitrary separation/division of the whole/universe.
Yeah, I'm taking this challenge for the sheer difficulty of it.
I want to defeat philosophy once and for all, and arrive at the most supreme method: The Scientific Method.
Many people say, "You cannot test the scientific method."
But I wish to do so, but to accomplish such a thing is to start at step one. Observation.
And soon, I will create an essay based on each step of the scientific method, under "Chemical-Physical Reality Prelude," and later, I'll remove the prelude, and perform the true analysis, and hopefully come up with the true purpose of the universe or something lofty.