|
Let's start by understanding these: (1) Time can
best be understood as the distance (duration) between events, or points
within an event. (2) A dimension can most simply be understood as the
distance from a change of direction to the next change of direction. (3)
The totality of all that exists derives only from the events and processes
that combine and work together to make that result. (4) Processes wholly
consist of combinations of events and lesser processes, all of which can
be understood as events in themselves. (5) All the ongoing events and
processes to exist culminate in the overweening process we call 'Nature';
and all of Nature can be reduced to those events and processes and still
be fully understood in that manner. The inception of the universe
was such an event. If time has a beginning, it was at the instant that
inception began, but it seems most logical to think it was in the
inception of a one-dimensional span of duration that preceded that minute
initial event while whatever led up to it did its work (and was, itself,
the unrecognized initial event).
I have been accused of claiming that time, as a force,
caused material to exist. Not true; that would be to claim something that
violates our understanding of natural laws. In one important but arguable
hypothesis, inertia caused particles to exist via the first strings to
form in space time. Those
strings caused material to exist. From what came the inertia?
We must first understand the nature of inertia to
understand the answer, or even to express an answer. Inertia is, according
to American Heritage, the tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the
tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to
stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force. The
nature of time, which we now recognize as a dimension, is that its passing
(or, our passing of it) occurs as a single dimension that represents a
span between any two points located in events. Being only
single-dimensional, It is a dimension
 whose
span is always being drawn. Being one-dimensional, time is a
substance-less phenomenon. It has no width or thickness, only length, and
so we have no way to perceive it except through its results, and consider
its existence to be in the abstract in spite of that. Although we cannot
see one-dimensional objects, we can sense their existence, and we
recognize time (whether rightly or wrongly), thinking of ourselves as
static, by sensing it as something that passes us by while inclusive
events occur around (and within) us. As events recede and new events
begin, we conceive that time passes endlessly with no apparent beginning
or end, like a strand with only length in all its measurements.
Natural law requires us to assign the property of inertia
to anything ongoing and uninterrupted, in spite of not knowing or
understanding the exact nature of that ongoingness. It matters little,
after all, whether it is time that does the going, whether all else simply
passes it by while it stays still, or whether it is only a perceived
condition of existence; inertia must still be a property belonging to it.
So, we have two things in the vast emptiness of
pre-material space: time, and its property of inertia. Space also exists
within itself, a vast emptiness we can hardly recognize as having
existence, but still we must acknowledge it as there. We find
ourselves capable to recognize space, acknowledge its describable
qualities, give it a name, and know it when we see it. So space, in the
human perceptions of things, must be acknowledged as existent. You may
feel like arguing against that, but please read on. A lot of what goes
against it is a matter of perceptions.
Space, whether it goes or stays put, must also be capable
to claim the property of inertia that we have already described and
granted to time. Energy is a form of material existence. Anything that
disturbed the inertia of space or time would act as a force and so
generate energy as a result. Inertia, then, as still now, generates energy
when it is disturbed. The energy is not created, as we would like to claim
and I have been accused of claiming. It is only thrown off in an amount
equal to the amount of inertia lost to the disturbance.
We are not talking of grand and spectacular phenomena here.
We are talking of the small, the minuscule, occurrences far below the
level of our perceptions, less than dust. We are talking about the
generation of strings, something so tiny they could pass right through our
bodies without any of our awareness, and
1most
likely have been doing so all along. Our bodies, relative to the sizes of
strings, would be something like our bodies compared to the universe, but
in reverse. Tiny. Seemingly meaningless. Are you snickering yet?
The inception of strings introduced gravity into the mix,
another form of inertia-possessing phenomenon. Gravity, compliments of
American Heritage: a. The natural force of
attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or
near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.
b. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies,
which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Let’s ask ourselves a question or two about those definitions, before we
go on and try to discover what all this has to do with the nature of evil.
What does ‘massive’ mean?–and what does ‘celestial’ mean?
Your body and mine possess the property of gravity, do they not? If we
both happen to be Americans, that may mean they are massive, but that does
not make them celestial. The definition in the dictionary comes from the
ordinary understanding of gravity, which is that it is a property of
planets and stars that "work upon" objects around them. All objects
exhibit this trait, this property. Dust possesses the property of gravity,
proportional to its size (its mass). In other words, gravity is a property
of all material. Germs, viruses, strings gravitate: the force of
gravitational inertia, providing they are within a required proximity and
other forces (such as friction, or air currents) did not interfere, would
draw them together.
In empty space, wherever material enters a gravitational
field, it will be drawn to the source, and draw the source toward itself
according to their proportions. The resultant process of that is a form of
accretion (or, growth) which is the only way that Nature (in a process
known as evolution) developed the material required to form a universe.
Evolution, a universal process, is the operating principle of Nature, of
which Biological Evolution (using adaptation) is the only aspect of which
most people are aware. Evolution appears in many forms throughout natural
and mechanical processes, and operates according to the so-called "Law" of
Cause and Effect (also known as Action and Consequence).
Now, let’s repeat
Newton’s Laws for Reasoning and then use them not only to evaluate
what has been said here so far, but to assess what we have to say about
the nature of evil, and evaluate that accordingly:
1.We are to admit no more
causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to
explain their appearances. The simplest
explanations are those which will be found true, and anything beyond them
will serve only to introduce superfluous errors. This is similar to
Ockham’s Razor (principle
of parsimony).
2. Therefore to the same
natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. A
human breathes the same as a lion; rocks raise from the ground the same
the world over; fire is fire, whether it is on Earth or the
2Sun;
light reflects the same from the Earth as from the moon.
3. The qualities of bodies,
which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are
found to belong to all bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be
esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Only by
insistence of fiction and dreams would experiments performed upon the
planet Earth be thought to yield different properties of matter and
evidence than all elsewhere in the Universe, and so violate the
requirements of Rules 1 and 2.
4. In experimental philosophy
we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from
phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary
hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur,
by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
In other words, contrary hypotheses are not to
be granted a privilege of evading the inductive value of evidence.
Induction: Logic. a. The process of deriving general
principles from particular facts or instances. b. A
conclusion reached by this process.
Hypothesis: a. A tentative explanation to account for a set of
facts that can be tested by further investigation; or: b. An
assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.
A hypothesis is not a theory.
Theory: a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a
relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of
assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to
analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a
specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a
system.
Those rules are here not only for you to use for evaluation
of what I write, but they will stand you in good stead for a lifetime.
Learn them by heart, practice using them here, and add to them as you
learn more about the practices of science.
So, how does American Heritage define evil?
e·vil (¶"v…l)
adj. e·vil·er,
e·vil·est.
1. Morally bad or
wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant..
2. Causing ruin, injury, or
pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or
indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy
by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by
anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
--e·vil n.
1. The quality of being
morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes
harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good
and evil. 3.
An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a
cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social
evils of poverty and injustice.
--e·vil adv. Archaic.
In an evil manner.
In other words, evil is recognized to be a quality (and not
a thing or presence) by which an entity, event or condition
is valued as it pertains to humans and morality. In a social setting, it
is that which violates important laws; in a natural setting, it is that
which violates natural laws. It is not a presence that exists among us,
except as fictional (a personification). That idea violates a logical rule
called the fallacy of reification or hypostatization. It is
not something existent in nature, but is a value assessed according
to human perceptions in regard to activities and conditions (causes and
effects) and their results applied upon mankind as individuals, or as
groups, or the things that mankind cares about. The scary idea that "evil
walks among us" must be relegated to the category of horror fiction.
So, add Action and Consequence to Newton’s Rules of Reason. Let’s apply
this natural process first to the development of the Universe to see if it
actually works, and then to the Nature of Evil.
The ongoing nature of time in pre-universe, pre-Big Bang space, and space
itself, display the naturally pervasive effects of inertia as inherent to
all of Nature without exception. Inertia inherent to the ongoing nature of
time may have interfered with the inertia inherent to empty space. To
suppose otherwise violates Newton’s Rules of Reason providing, of course,
that time and/or space possess the quality of inertia we have granted them
(inertia meaning, as in all cases, that they will maintain whatever motion
they undergo until something happens to influence that condition
otherwise, whether they stay still or in motion). This means that time and
space have no actual beginning in any way that we could understand; to
think otherwise is to ponder something that violates the natural laws of
inertia. To offer a tentative acceptance of such an idea will allow you to
experience the profundity of Nature’s simple procedures. No ghosts,
exterior influences, added hypotheses, nor other violations of Newton’s
Rules of Reason are required for it to work.
The inertia inherent to time, space and gravity are weak but still
recognizable and would only be strong enough to initiate one-dimensional
sub-micro particles if one affected the other. The existence of one such
particle would likely be enough to disrupt the inertia at whatever spot it
occupied, and bring about replication of itself. This rising up from
apparent nothingness would be the first application of Action and
Consequence. The natural effects of gravity inherent to matter would cause
it to assemble into larger bodies to eventually achieve the mass necessary
for the Big Bang to occur. This is likely an ongoing process. I would
predict that to someday be found true and, if ever it is, that would serve
as verification.
The Action and Consequence (Cause and Effect) nature of processes has been
in operation since the beginning of material accumulation and still
applies to all of Nature’s constructive enterprises, including those human
beings would regard to be destructive. Ancient mankind, frightened by such
events as nearby lightning strikes, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods as a
result of hurricanes, flash floods, tornadoes, comets and meteors, flaming
and exploding oil and gas fumes rising from the ground, death of loved
ones, massive injuries, attacks by bands of wild predators, and more, had
plenty of reason to suspect evil to exist and no knowledge to tell them
otherwise. Have we yet advanced from that?
Evil is adjudged to be a quality of that which can be shown to be
injurious to mankind; it might also be shown to be inherent to a
preference for whatever spawns and promotes that, over what would
forestall it and hold it in abeyance. The quality of purposeful ignorance,
for example, may be such a thing as to promote evil. To fear the kind of
knowledge that would end that kind of ignorance and the conditions
inherent to it would spawn that kind of preference in an evil person. That
kind of knowledge carries with it an awareness that each and every human
being owns the responsibility to do the best they can for themselves and
their heirs. Attempts to thwart others' such efforts could justifiably be
perceived as evil. Ignorance of that kind of knowledge allows the
perpetrators to shuck responsibility for their actions off their own
shoulders and onto hypothetical existences in violation of Newton’s rules,
and in attempts to violate the "Law" of Cause and Effect. To violate
natural laws spawns conditions humans must learn to regard as evil; to
avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own destructive
activities spawns conditions humans must also learn to regard as evil; to
purposefully choose oblivious ignorance while immersed in the midst of
easily accessible knowledge about these simple aspects of Nature spawns
conditions humans must, even more so, learn to regard as evil. The actions
of various individuals and organizations to prevent awareness of simple
natural knowledge, to prevent its spread whether by withholding of it,
destruction of materials to present it, or by lying about it in such ways
as to make others deem it to be undesirable, or of questionable value,
must very soon come to be something regarded by humanity as blasphemous
evil of the most dire kind, and immoral.
What Nature boils down to is nothing more than events and processes,
continued to the present and into the future from the very beginning. You
and I are processes within Nature, composed of processes resultant from
other ongoing processes and events in a hierarchy that builds upon the
very microparticles of which our beings are composed and all that is
ongoing within them. All of our beings are bound together by the gravity
inherent to those less than visible particles, all of which are bound to
the planet upon which we were spawned and from whose elements and
particles our own process of existence began and continues. To prevent
each and every one of us from understanding this most material view of our
relationship with our planet, to avoid acknowledging the onus we bear for
the future of humanity while we, in ignorance, allow a few to profit from
its destruction, we must soon learn to regard as evil done against our own
heirs.
If we misunderstand proper morality to be the fostering of evil, as we are
too often and too persuasively taught in our cultures, and which we too
heartily adopt as irrefutable truth in our own gullibility and laxity, and
our own fear for the potential to lose our personal comfort, the morality
we have promoted with such zeal is one that sponsors evil as defined
herein, as regarded according to Newton’s Rules of Reason, and as Cause
and Effect/Action and Consequence applies to the onus our future
generations will regard us as having avoided. It is they who will suffer
when we have stolen their resources for our own pleasure, and torn down
our world rather than being constructive in our usage and understanding of
it. It seems imperative, then, that we must quickly learn to recognize the
rabble-rousing tactics of those serving the interests of destruction with
their loud pronouncements that violate Newton’s Rules of Reason. By
insisting upon the existence of intervening, unnatural conditions
demanding that we behave in unnatural ways, by conjuring up specters that
walk invisibly among us and threaten us with punishments and torture for
refusing to act and believe in the unnatural ways for which they seek
enforcement, to introduce and perpetuate self-loathing and hatred for the
humanity of our beings and our heirs, arousing malignant attitudes in our
midst which threaten us all with obfuscatory and mystifying doctrines
complicated by an insistence we accept as truth what would in any other
situation be whole cloth, Newton’s Laws of Reason and Action and
Consequence get trashed beyond any hope of reconciliation.
Would it not behoove us to learn how to quickly recognize such individuals
as being beneath even our desire to scoff at them, but that we ought to
recognize the threat they pose against humanity and the wiliness with
which they work to impose their errors and misconceptions that has led to
their great success and to humanity’s eventual downfall? That which works
so hard to destroy us, we ought to recognize as evil by dictionary decree,
and learn to act accordingly to remove them from their public forum to
make way for a truer understanding of our selves.
For such are enemies against the whole of mankind, spreading demonstrable
lies in the name of Truth, by which they betray the trust of their own
followers, and all of mankind gets infected by that. If you still snicker,
you may be one of them.
|
