As a philosopher, one who is attempting an inquiry into the nature of things,
I must have some place where I begin……
therefore, I begin here…… I do not believe in god or an metaphysical
notion that there are things beyond the physical. What is, is in the
known and seen universe. It has been said that there is such stuff as
dark matter and dark energy but we cannot see it…… I say, we can’t
see it yet. We just haven’t created the tools we need to see or measure
such things as dark matter or dark energy. Our scientific growth has
come because we have created tools that allow us to expand the use of
our senses with such devices as a telescope and microscope and antennas
and particle accelerators…It is the use of and growth in such tools
that has allowed us to gather a greater understanding of the universe and
the forces or laws of the universe. We have such human tools as logic
and science and mathematics that allows us gather information about
the nature of and reality of the universe we live in.
If you want a definition of a human being, it might be this, a human being
is a tool using animal.
It is the rise of modern science which has created our modern world.
Science measures, weighs, counts, analysis matter, forces, time/space…
in other words, if it can be studied and measured, it is science and science
uses those tools of science to measure and weigh and count……
The question of science is about the who, what, when, where, how but
and this is important, not the why. Using the tools of science we can build
an atomic bomb but science cannot tell us if the use of the atomic bomb
is a “good” or a “bad” thing. That is the role of philosophy. But one may ask,
why isn’t it the role of religion? Because Religion takes into account
evidence that isn’t really there… In other words, in a court of law,
the trial of a person, the court would introduce the evidence of a crime
and that evidence must be physical evidence, paper work, a gun or a knife,
tax documents and if the evidence is a person who has knowledge of
the crime, it cannot be the sole evidence of a crime. In other words,
we must conclusively connect the person who is being charged with a crime
to the evidence of a crime. let us return to the role of religion.
For the evidence a religious person needs to prove there is
existence of a god, the evidence is not physical evidence.
The religious person accepts non physical evidence that a court
of law would not accept. You cannot prove that a god exists
and no court in the universe would accept that evidence because
there is no physical evidence connecting god to the physical universe.
a person saying in a court of law, I believe this is true and that makes
it true would not be accepted in a court of law as evidence of a crime or
any type of connection to a crime. simple belief is not enough of a connection
to be accepted in a court of law……… and that is how I judge evidence for
something. Would it be acceptable in a court of law? If I hold this belief,
is there enough physical evidence to have this belief as holding true
in a court of law? In other words, my burden of proof is very high.
I cannot hold a belief if there is not enough supporting physical evidence for
that belief.
so in my inquiry, I can hold a belief if there is enough evidence that holds
true in a court of law. So I hold the belief that there are UFO’S because I
believe that there is enough physical evidence to bring into a court
of law and that evidence can be used to show that UFO’S exists.
But there isn’t enough physical evidence to show us that a god or gods, exists.
We have enough physical evidence to show that black holes exists
and that time/space are a physical entity. That time/space is not
just a mathematical concept but a physical one like the planet
earth is physical evidence that planets do exists.
We have evidence that time/energy/matter/mass all have
a beginning in the big bang and thus have a ending date at
some point in the future but and this is important,
that the amount of matter/energy created in the big bang
is still the same amount of matter/energy that exists today and will
be the same amount of matter at the end of existence.
so how we will be able to explain the ending of the universe
in light of the fact that the amount of energy/matter in the universe
will be the exactly the same from beginning to end?
This is done by entropy. a decline into disorder from order.
Order exists because of the amount of energy that is in the system
or put into a system allows the system to maintain order.
Once a system doesn’t have enough energy to maintain itself,
it begins its decline into disorder. The amount of energy a system
needs changes as the system changes. A political system in the
beginning phases of it operation needs a different amount of energy then
during it middle phase and a different amount during it ending phase.
At our current phase of existence we need more energy to maintain
our existence and yet, people try to increase disorder
by removing energy that goes into the system. That is done by
removing the energy a system needs to sustain and build itself.
a political system does this by money which allows a system
to maintain itself and the amount of energy that goes into a system.
so if we understand that a system needs an ever greater amount of
energy to maintain itself because a system becomes ever greater
more complicated. So the energy needed to maintain the American
political system was less during the 18the century and then every
century thereafter the amount of energy needed increased just
maintain itself. A large system needs ever greater energy then a smaller
system to maintain itself and the energy a political system needs is
twofold, participation and money. A reduction in either type of energy,
participation and money into a political system increases the disorder
into a system.
To truly understand the modern world, we must understand
systems and the energy that goes into the modern systems that
makes the systems work.
this is some of what I hold to be true.
Kropotkin