"Refutation of principle terms

Under ‘Human beings’ -your term ‘life force’- is not necessarily non-corporal or non-biological. This is going to be a continuing bugbear for your position, because it is a rather large assumption to say that what you term ‘life- force’, is not a physio-chemical process, just like crystallinity is a physio-chemical process. To assume that there is something 'behind' replicating molecules assumes that purely physio-chemical replication is not possible, which seems to me less reasonable (replicating nature of atomic crystal structure~~replicating nature of DNA/RNA). At any rate what is behind ‘life’ could be no different to what is behind crystallinity of rocks and minerals, therefore the same argument applies to both.

To repeat, because the origin of 'spontaneous carbon-based replication'/etc has not yet been demonstrated, does not mean that there isn't a biochemical/physio-chemical process which could give rise to replicating DNA/RNA or other molecules. One idea suggests that the holistic properties of some carbon molecules, in conjunction with inherently unstable molecules within the structure, creates a kind of feedback loop, in which the unstable molecules within the structure are forced to replicate, so as to maintain the holism of the greater structure. This is a similar process to what most multicellular life does- develop and build up a structure, and reproduce/replicate as one subsequently disintegrates/ages. At any rate, once replication has set in, molecules will, by the very nature of the process, evolve.

Under your term ‘Consciousness’-again this could also be entirely a biological property-an emergent and evolved property of collections of neurons. To assume that consciousness is not physio-chemical seems to me less reasonable, any less than the computer in front of me is physio-chemical.

‘Also, since the conception of causal infinity is from our incomplete perspective, the notion of infinity is only graspable, in this context, in an incomplete sense’.

This assumes that our perspective is incomplete. However, if our perspective is partially derived from ‘life-force’ as you say, then it is not necessarily incomplete, since your ‘life force’ is assumed to be 'complete'.

Causality could still have a beginning as a subset of infinity. The origin of the subset could be innate within the properties of infinity, meaning that some form of causality always existed. The fundamental 'separation' of causality and infinity could be a human- evolved misconception. Similar examples occur with most of our senses and reasoning capacities, which seem to artificially enhance and/or invent separations in nature, which can be shown to not exist. The spectrum of light is a good example- colours are produced artificially by the biochemical properties of filters in the eye-the divisions between colours themselves do not exist in nature, but like everything else seem to exist as an indivisible spectrum. The same could be said of infinity and causality, which your position suggests are two different entities.

Also your ‘differentiation from other life forms’ is questionable in this sense. The only differentiation is in terms of reproductive isolation/physiological-cultural (i.e. speciation). Species can be shown to exist on a spectrum, i.e. the ‘tree of life’."

Ice-age primate March 18 2003

Response:

By defining "consciousness and life-force" as non-corporeal, we are not saying that these entities are necessarily non-corporeal or "non-biological". We are saying based on what we more reasonable know, consciousness and life-force are non-corporeal with the possibility that they may not be. (Note, the notion of replication feedback loop does not account for what is behind replication and cells’ themselves. Also, your contention that consciousness is more reasonably a biological property (i.e. "collection of neurons") in a fundamental physio-chemical state, does not explain what is behind the physio-chemical itself, and your position assumes that consciousness is biological in nature. If you can more reasonably show empirical evidence of the fundamental biological nature of life-force or consciousness itself, we will re-evaluate your point.)

Moreover, by saying our perspective is more reasonably incomplete and thereby our perspective of infinity is as well, does not necessarily mean infinity itself is incomplete. We are simply saying that from our (incomplete) perspective, infinity or any other concept is incomplete. We are not saying that infinity itself or any other concept is necessarily incomplete.

Further, we agree as implied by the concept of causal infinity that causality and infinity are a single entity in the sense that from our perspective since existence is defined by both causality and infinity, it follows that causality and infinity are indivisible. I.e. in terms of existence, causality implies infinity just as infinity implies causality.

Also, we agree that though conscious differentiation of life-forms is a necessary part of our perspective (i.e. comparative nature of consciousness), when causal infinity (including the notion of interconnectedness of life-forms) is taken into account, there is no fundamental differentiation between life-forms--what you refer to as the "tree of life".

6. Entry:

"The proposition is simply built upon a falsehood. We are not primarily a byproduct of the causal effect of the infinity of existence. We are an integral part of the infinity of existence. The infinity of existence ‘is not’ without us."

Craig Bush March 19 2003

Response:

The proposition is not saying we are primarily a byproduct of the causal effect of the infinity of existence. The proposition is saying that we are part (i.e. "interconnected members of existence") of the infinity of existence (i.e. "unending interactive relationship between things"). So the proposition is agreeing with your view that we are an "integral part" of the infinity of existence, since existence which we are part of is defined as unending. As you conclude, while maintaining consistency with the proposition, "the infinity of existence is not without us". Though we think the proposition goes further by implicitly saying that the infinity of existence more reasonably from our incomplete perspective is not ever without us.

7. Entry:

"Existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it apparently does not make rational sense. Nature makes an inordinate amount of sense but existence itself is patently irrational and, thus, possibly supernatural. Nonetheless, attempts to rationally explain existence have proliferated since the dawn of humanity, but all of these have led back to paradox rather than resolving the paradox of existence.

One proposed explanation for existence is that it just is, and is not contingent on a cause or anything else for that matter. This is rhetorical nonsense. You might as well say dill pickles explain the meaning of life for all we are able to meaningfully glean from such a statement. It does not begin to describe much less account for existence but, at best, can be interpreted as an affirmation or expression of humor.

Others have argued that the reality of our existence is self-evident, and to think otherwise is pointless and often destructive solipsism. As Aart Van Der Leeuw put it succinctly, "The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Whether true or not, this decidedly pessimistic and anti-intellectual attitude fails to resolve the paradox in any intelligible manner. Rather than supplying an explanation or evidence for the origin, disposition, and authenticity of existence, it perfunctorily dismisses the wisdom of exploring the mystery.

Along similar lines of reasoning, many have proposed that paradoxes are not real but instead, entirely the result of the natural limitations of language, abstract thought, and perception. It could well be then that humanity is simply incapable of rationally perceiving much less conceptualizing its own existence. Alas, this argument again summarily denies the empirical evidence of the paradox of existence while making an unverified assertion. Undoubtedly we have managed to find solutions for countless paradoxes, but in other cases what we have considered to be rational has turned out to be irrational. It can be productive to investigate paradoxes for rational solutions, but to do so without an acknowledgement and awareness of the depths of our ignorance is to loose our objectivity and needlessly impose possibly self-defeating limitations on ourselves.

Infinity is one of the more popular accounts put forward for the paradox of existence. The vast majority of humanity has argued that if existence is infinite in certain respects this somehow makes it rational, for example, if existence is eternal and has no beginning or end. Unfortunately for such arguments the concept of infinity itself is paradoxical. Lao Tzu expressed this conundrum of infinity and the paradox of existence with elegant classic flare some twenty-five hundred years ago:

The mother of nature.
It has no name,
But I call it "the Way";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".

To declare something is infinite is to assert that it has no limits. However, this presents a paradox because the statement contradicts itself. Specifically, it imposes the limit on itself that there are no limits. Because of this irrational self-contradictory and self-referential statement we can interpret infinity any way we so desire and none can prove us wrong. All they can do is point out the inherent irrational paradox.

This inability to logically express much less prove or disprove infinity, has not prevented people from around the globe using the term for everything from casual everyday use to elaborate engineering designs and obscure theological debates. Infinity, for example, is central to calculus, which has revolutionized modern science and paradoxes in general have proven to be invaluable shortcuts to determing what is apparently impossible. Thus, paradoxes and infinities are not so easily ignored as meaningless, trivial, or useless. Nor for that matter, can they be casually dismissed as manifestly wrong, misleading, or indescribable.

Now when people normally use the word infinity they are referring to something so vast it may be impossible to measure, and this seems quite rational to most people. Even so, like countless reflections in a house of mirrors, with infinity you can never be quite certain if what you are looking at is real or just a reflection. Whichever way you turn looks the same and where exactly we might be within the maze of reflections, much less if there is a way out of the maze, cannot be determined by just looking around. William Blake expressed this somehow flowing yet timeless, comprehensible yet incomprehensible quality of infinity in his popular poem, "Auguries of Innocence":

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour

Over the millennia these sometimes confusing images of infinity have been logically and mathematically manipulated to prove an incredible number of absurdities including, for example, that one equals two. Eventually mathematicians and philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel, established that mathematics and logic could not be used to prove the validity of infinity without producing paradoxes. In other words, if the concept of infinity is not irrational or just so much illusory smoke and mirrors, apparently no one can ever prove it logically or mathematically.

In an actual house of mirrors we can walk right up to the nearest image and touch it to see if it is the real McCoy or just another reflection and, using this hands on method, we can find our way out of the maze. Regrettably, this direct approach is evidently impossible in the case of infinity. No one has ever scientifically proven any kind of infinity exists in the real world much less that the concept is logical.

Everything science has investigated to date has eventually turned out to be, by the standards of science itself, rational and finite or presumably irrational or paradoxical. This continuing failure to scientifically prove anything in nature is infinite leads us, once again, inexorably back to paradox. If existence is finite, then how can it have any reasonable causal origins? If it is infinite and has no causal origins, then how can it be rational? The scientific establishment has been just as helpless to clarify the situation as the rest of us.

A partial explanation for this persistent confusion is that paradox, infinity, existence, and the absurd are perhaps the slipperiest and most vague concepts ever invented. Disproving paradoxes has been done as I mentioned earlier, but it can be a difficult task. As often as not attempts to disprove paradox just generate new paradoxes in a manner similar again to the countless reflections in a house of mirrors. Even attempting to just ignore a paradox can generate new ones; again, not unlike the way infinities behave. At times it appears all we can do is shrug our shoulders and accept paradox as it presents itself.

Logicians have attempted to clarify paradoxes for eons with extremely limited success. Intriguingly, the logicians have come to the conclusion that by their own strict definition at least one paradox, the Liar's Paradox, may be real. Another difficult to explain paradox is the Sorites Heap paradox which has led back to the vagueness of our terms as an alternative explanation.

Linguists as well have attempted to clarify these vague terms of paradox, infinity, existence, and the absurd with limited success. Natural language is repleate with vague terms such as bald and heap, but at least these refer to things we can actually point to and support with physical evidence. In such cases it may be possible to refine our definitions using observations and measurements, but this is apparently impossible in the case of paradox.

For all these reasons and more, existence presents the astonishing likelihood that at least one paradox may be real in some sense and not merely the result of ignorance on our part. Whether invoking eternity, oneness, or the supernatural each new explanation proposed for existence has invariably led back to paradox. For something to be eternal, God-like, or all encompassing invokes logically impenetrable paradox. If God or eternity really can explain existence, then where did they come from? If everything is profoundly unified, than logic is the illogical. Coherent explanations to this puzzle of existence are impossible by the very definition of logic if, indeed, existence truly is a paradox, as it certainly appears to be.

Once we have accepted and acknowledged this simple fact of life, we can then move on to more easily and objectively explore how best to approach, conceptualize, and use paradoxes and the irrational like any other handy and ubiquitous tools. By extending this pragmatic approach we can adopt the position that we do indeed exist after some fashion, but that the precise nature of our existence is fundamentally impenetrable to reason until proven otherwise. In fact, whether or not we ever solve the mystery of life, the universe, and everything may be entirely irrelevant. Clearly there is still a great deal more we can learn about life and, in the process, about ourselves.

Among the many less personal ramifications of this enduring base ignorance is that the very foundations of academic logic, philosophy, and science have remained dubious for millennia. Despite innumerable attempts by extremely sincere, capable, and dedicated people throughout history the paradox of existence has consistently defied all rational and objective investigations for obvious and self-evident reasons. The humbling and mounting realization accompanying this failure is that, in addition to existence, everything else may eventually prove to be paradoxical and merely appear to be rational to us because of the limits of human perception.

Therefore the proposition that "we are [more reasonably] human beings who are part of the causal infinity of existence" defies the history of scholarly research on the subject not to mention the diversity of opinions worldwide. Infinity and existence may well be simply pseudonyms for paradox, making the statement utterly meaningless. The most reasonable proposition might be to simply admit we may never know."

Robert Hinchy June 9 2003

Response:

If Competition 2 were centered around the question of who [more reasonably] are we completely, your position that we do not know and may never know who we are (a partial re-wording of Proposition 1 "we cannot more reasonably truly know in part or in whole who we are and be who we are at the same time") appears more reasonable based on the current results of Competition 1. However, Competition 2 is centered around the question of who [more reasonably] are we within limits, and surely there is nothing preventing us from determining the more reasonable who we are within limits. For instance, based on the apparent existence of thought, it is more reasonable that we exist at some level than we do not exist at some level. Viz., to contend that we do not exist at some level is self-defeating. So in your criticism of "infinity" ("we may never know [who we are]"), you offer no more reasonable alternative for who we are within limits. Or in your words in which you rule out identifying ourselves within the realm of finiteness (and infiniteness):

Everything science has investigated to date has eventually turned out to be, by the standards of science itself, rational and finite or presumably irrational or paradoxical. This continuing failure to scientifically prove anything in nature is infinite leads us, once again, inexorably back to paradox. If existence is finite, then how can it have any reasonable causal origins? If it is infinite and has no causal origins, then how can it be rational? The scientific establishment has been just as helpless to clarify the situation as the rest of us.

Moreover, you contend that infinity is not provable or demonstrable, and yet it does not follow to us why we cannot more reasonably prove and demonstrate the concept based on, for instance, the comparative nature of human consciousness in which from our perspective there is an apparent endless chain of causality to things. You refer to the inability empiricism to identify infinity itself as in an object, but we are dealing with a concept not an object, and the concept of infinity can be identified through things based on their apparent interconnectedness in which no complete beginning or end to things can be empirically identified.

Further, you claim that infinity is a "vague" concept, but it is unclear to us what is so vague about a concept which refers to a continuous, interconnected process to things, and the process is unfolding all around us. Sure we acknowledge that infinity cannot be completely comprehended because such comprehension would be contrary to our comparative perspective. But the same criticism or incompleteness can be applied to any other concept.

What is important in the context of the Competition is not necessarily "the history of scholarly research" on infinity or "the diversity of opinions worldwide" on infinity, but the reasons for one position over another. We have taken the position, partly based on the comparative nature of human consciousness, and our inability to get outside of our minds and know that we are, that we (i.e. humanity) are more reasonably defined by causal infinity. Do you have a position which is more reasonable within limits than our position?

Entries 1-4 Entries 8-11