Sci-Phil I wrote this

Xmo1

Xmo1

Registered Senior Member
Why Is?
The Universe is essence.
Reality is the nature of the Universe.
The Universe was here historically before life evolved anywhere in the Universe.
Life is both a product of the properties of the Universe, and it is a creative evolution of the Universe.
Life, similarly, evolved the ability to perceive the Universe out of it's need to survive.
 
Xmo1 said:
Why Is?
The Universe is essence.
Reality is the nature of the Universe.
The Universe was here historically before life evolved anywhere in the Universe.
Life is both a product of the properties of the Universe, and it is a creative evolution of the Universe.
Life, similarly, evolved the ability to perceive the Universe out of it's need to survive.
Click to expand...
Not sure this is the right SF. Sounds like philosophy.
 
Xmo1 said:
Why Is?
The Universe is essence.
Reality is the nature of the Universe.
The Universe was here historically before life evolved anywhere in the Universe.
Life is both a product of the properties of the Universe, and it is a creative evolution of the Universe.
Life, similarly, evolved the ability to perceive the Universe out of it's need to survive.
Click to expand...
The first two statements, "The universe is essence" and "Reality is the nature of the universe" seem on the face of it to be meaningless. Essence of what? And how could the universe not be real?

The rest seems uncontentious, if not particularly insightful.
 
Thanks for the views and reviews, and for moving the post. Taking a break in my garage woodshop, I just gave it a thought, and this is the result. I wrote it down, then decided to share it with people smarter than I to see what would shake out.
 
exchemist said:
The first two statements, "The universe is essence" and "Reality is the nature of the universe" seem on the face of it to be meaningless. Essence of what? And how could the universe not be real?

The rest seems uncontentious, if not particularly insightful.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, obviously. So maybe the words could be tweaked, and I get your question 'essence of what.' I thought of essence as post first cause. So bam there it is. Whatever you would call it, The universe is (the) essence (of it). So, what is The Universe? It's what is real (reality). Would you say reality is a bigger container than The Universe? That would bring it back to first cause.
 
Last edited:
Xmo1 said:
I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, obviously. So maybe the words could be tweaked, and I get your question 'essence of what.' I thought of essence as post first cause. So bam there it is. Whatever you would call it, The universe is (the) essence (of it). So, what is The Universe? It's what is real (reality).
Click to expand...
Ah, maybe the light dawns for me now. Do you use “essence” in the sense in which Aquinas used it, i.e. as in Thomist philosophy, in other words as distinct from “existence”?
 
exchemist said:
Ah, maybe the light dawns for me now. Do you use “essence” in the sense in which Aquinas used it, i.e. as in Thomist philosophy, in other words as distinct from “existence”?
Click to expand...
That's difficult for me to answer. Existence, to me is one part of three of reality; Eternity, Infinity, and Existence. Essence is what makes a thing, or the better part of it. It's kind of circular, and difficult for me. Thanks.
 
Xmo1 said:
Why Is?
The Universe is essence.
Reality is the nature of the Universe.
The Universe was here historically before life evolved anywhere in the Universe.
Life is both a product of the properties of the Universe, and it is a creative evolution of the Universe.
Life, similarly, evolved the ability to perceive the Universe out of it's need to survive.
Click to expand...
The Universe is an autonomous process, capable of neither purpose nor intent.
Life is the accidental agglomeration of chemical substances.
"Consciousness" is an evolutionary dead end.
 
Xmo1 said:
Why Is?
The Universe is essence.
Reality is the nature of the Universe.
The Universe was here historically before life evolved anywhere in the Universe.
Life is both a product of the properties of the Universe, and it is a creative evolution of the Universe.
Life, similarly, evolved the ability to perceive the Universe out of it's need to survive.
Click to expand...
I think by introducing "life" the focus becomes too narrow, and somewhat confused. And I agree with exchemist here, the sense in which you use "essence" is unclear.

Compare Michael Moorcock's "Black Corridor":
Space is infinite, it is dark
Space is neutral, it is cold
Stars occupy minute areas of space
They are clustered a few billion here
And a few billion there
As if seeking consolation in numbers
Space does not care, space does not threaten
Space does not comfort
It does not speak, it does not wake
It does not dream
It does not hope, it does not fear
It does not love, it does not hate
It does not encourage any of these qualities

Space cannot be measured, it cannot be angered
It cannot be placated
It cannot be summed up, space is there
Space is not large and it is not small
It does not live and it does not die
It does not offer truth and neither does it lie
Space is a remorseless, senseless, impersonal fact
Space is the absence of time and of matter
Click to expand...

Moorcock weren't no poet, that's for sure, but this kinda works. He doesn't really depart from the theme of "space" by introducing other concepts or notions. Just the attributes of "space".
 
The potential of the post is wrapped in the idea that it pokes people to think about the base foundations of reality, the universe, and their surroundings. Maybe it will anchor people who have lost their ground in the information overload.
The Universe is essence: The idea being that it was first, and all things derive from it. I could have said 'essential,' and you might ask 'to what?' Instead, I shortened it to essence, which is a noun, which in this case equates to The Universe.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Yet another sock puppet of Nick Hosein? Nah, your extremely early registration to this forum seems to rule that out. :)
_
Click to expand...
Haha, that’s what I wondered. But the lack of references to Langan’s CTMU seems to militate against that.:) Unless Xmo1 has been a sleeper all these years….

An agent of Elon Musk, perhaps?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top