User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism peer review2

This manuscript has been peer reviewed by Christopher Michael Langan (CTMU), and Jonathan Richard Emerson (the G 	proof), and by numerous atheists and agnostics across the internet; such as on myspace religion and philosophy forum, facebook groups, and on paltalk.

sole Author: Mars Sterling Turner

=Abstract=

Proof of monism is a work of Mars Sterling Turner that includes the logical proof of monism, the proof of the scientific laws of monism, and the pragmatic proof of monism. Three separate epistemologies are used as a method of proof; rationalism, scientism, and pragmatism.

=Introduction=

everything is made of one thing
Monism can be demonstrated by proving that everything is made of one thing ;

nothing is nonexistence. this is a logical tautology taken from the dictionary; the contraposition is; something has as it's particular characteristics; existence (have to be made of it to exist)

No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less.

Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that has as it's particular characteristics; existence.

nowhere and at no time has nothing existed

that one thing has always existed everywhere

nothing is made of nothing {}⊂{};

everything is made of that one thing QED

that one thing is made of itself

Scientific laws of monism
Proof--It is a scientific law that energy is eternal and omnipresent [S1 & S2]. It is a scientific law that eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full [S3]. Eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, energy is a monism. Q.E.D.

energy is eternal
∑E, the sum of energy

Ek, kinetic energy

Ep, potential energy

proof; ∑E = Ek+Ep

Scientific Law (1); Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

energy cannot be created

ergo by time reversal symmetry it is a scientific law that energy never was created

ergo energy cannot be created, never was created, energy exists and yet cannot be destroyed,

ergo it is a scientific law that energy is eternal. Q.E.D.

energy is omnipresent
E, energy

c, speed of light

m, mass

E/c^2 = m

proof; E = m c^2;

Scientific Law (2); mass - energy equivalence;


 * "Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the Particles of Light which enter their Composition?"-Isaac Newton.

Electromagnetic radiation and matter are convertible into one another; in other words its a scientific law that energy is omnipresent. QED

energy is all-power-full
E, energy

P, power

Δ, increment

d, derivative

∫, integral

∇, gradient

t, time

s, space

ΔE = ΔE

ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δt

ΔP = ΔE/Δt; axiom 1

ΔP = ΔE/Δs Δs/Δt

∇E = ΔE/Δs; axiom 2

ΔP = ∇E Δs/Δt

Δs/Δt = Δv; axiom 3

ΔP = ∇E Δv

dP = ∇E dv

∫dP = ∫ ∇E dv

proof; P = ∫ ∇E dv

Scientific Law (3); Power is the transformation of energy over space and time.

All expressions of power are transformations of energy

ergo it is a scientific law that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is all-power-full Q.E.D.

resolved paradox of omnipotence
Power is defined as the transformation of energy, not the destruction of energy. The inability to destroy itself does not contradict being all-power-full. Therefore energy cannot destroy itself.

To create and to lift both involve the transformation of energy. The monism may be an infinite energy (zero point energy) and a rock which has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore the monism cannot create a rock that it cannot lift.

Therefore the monism is natural.

Note; Resolving the omnipotence paradox demonstrates a clarified understanding of reality.

This pragmatically proves that monism exists. QED

=Discussion=

Identity of indiscernibles
Two seemingly separate things having the same ontological properties are actually one and the same thing.

Energy is the one thing
Everything is made of energy (energy is omnipresent) and both also are eternal and have as their particular characteristics existence (have to be made of energy to exist)

resolved problem of the non-physical
Define "physical";

By physical, does one mean 3-space local realism at no greater than the speed of light?

Such that the following are non-physical;

(1) any spacial dimensions higher than 3

(2) non-locality and quantum entanglement

(3) superluminal speed and negative refractive index

Or by "physical" does one equivocate to mean "natural"?

The monism is natural.

dual aspect monism
So you have the physical and non-physical and both are made of the same thing; energy

nothing is not
my rebuttal to ontological nihilism is these logical tautologies;

nothing is not, nothing is nothing , nothing equals nothing, nothing implies nothing, nothing has the property of nothing, nothing exists as nothing, nothing is the cause of nothing, nowhere and at no time has nothing existed, nothing is made of nothing, nothing is in nothing, nothing is nonexistence.

=Epistemology of proofs; Methods=

This work uses the following three epistemologies as methods of inquiry; rationalism, scientism, and pragmatism.

Rationalism
(where you show something is a logical tautology or that it metalogically follows), and

Scientism
(where you use scientific laws as axioms to deduce more scientific laws), and

Pragmatism
(where you merely show the utility of something; that it is useful).

=References=