The Real Ontological Proof

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Real Ontological Proof

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:18 am
The Real Ontological Proof

(Version 1)

Copyright 2007, Dennis H. Kane

Notice: You are free to copy and redistribute this work as long as you do not modify it in any way.


This is really a kind of Ontological hypothesis and subsequent Ontological deduction. However, the term "Ontological Proof" is just too sexy to resist!

(This is an attempt to explain what Deep Thought actually meant by "42". (It's a "Hitchhiker's" thing!))

Consider the idea of space.

In order for it to physically exist, space must be internally cohesive: it must be substantial.

Substantial space can be understood through the idea of pure chaos.

Pure chaos, itself, is unstructured. It is actively potential and potentially active: it is absolute creativity.

Externally regarded, pure creative chaos and pure inert space are indentical: they are not phenomenal.

However, pure inert space cannot possibly exist because it is not internally cohesive. With pure inert space, there cannot even be nothingness.

Therefore, the space that everywhere surrounds us is necessarily creative. It cannot be otherwise.

Pure creative chaos is hereby defined as: Energy.

It is extremely important to understand that, qua Energy, there is no such thing as scale, whether durational or extensive.

Energy freely intensifies (condenses) and extensifies (expands).

An Energy intensity is said to be a mass or a being: this is the massive form of Energy.

An Energy extensity is said to be a wave or a radiance: this is the radiant form of Energy.

There are not any possible concepts as absolute massive-Energy or absolute radiant-Energy. These phrases are internally contradictory. Therefore, any determinations of massive-Energy or radiant-Energy are necessarily relative.

There truly is no internality or externality. All beings are constitued by the perfectly entangled "fabric" that is known as Energy. There cannot be any boundaries to separate Energy from itself.

It may be incorrectly thought that massive-Energy causes intensification (condensation). This illusion is called gravity. The correct interpretation is that Energy is perfectly free to intensify, at any time, on any scale. The illusion of gravity is entirely dependent upon a scalar prejudice. A being of a small enough scale will simply experience all of this intensity as radiant-Energy (extensity).

The opposite is also true: Energy is perfectly free to extensify, at any time, on any scale. However, a being of a large enough scale will simply experience all of this extensity as massive-Energy (intensity).

Phenomena are given to beings only by way of radiant-Energy.

The sum total of all phenomena given to a being determines its Universe. Beings that tranform their constituent massive-Energy into radiant-Energy are directly phenomenal. Beings that scatter radiant-Energy are indirectly phenomenal. Beings, as such, are not phenomenal, and are not part of any given being's Universe.

The impossible case of an external perspective of the pure creative chaos that is Energy leads beings to speculate about being-as-such. They have given this concept such names as The Supreme Being or God. All arguments concerning an intentionality that underlies phenomenal regularity are cases of scalar prejudice. On smaller scales, the regularities between beings are understood only as chaotic radiant-Energy. To speak of intentionality is to debase the true "power" of Energy. Energy, as pure creative chaos, is the mightiest of all possible Supreme Beings.

Scalar prejudice can give rise to the illusion of determinism, which is the source of the misguided notions of mathematical ontology (logical positivism) and theistic ontology (theology). Mathematics and theology are merely practical and not truthful.

This argument is [perhaps] the best available answer to the biggest philosophical and scientific conundrums, such as the mind-body duality and the conflict between gravitational theory and quantum theory.


Biography: Dennis Kane was born in Tallahassee, Florida, USA in 1975 and raised in Tampa, Florida, USA. He graduated from Chamberlain High School in Tampa in 1993.
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:13 pm
And now on the web:

The Real Ontological Proof
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 03:30 pm
dkane Hi.... I have printed this post of yours so I can read it. I see great wisdom in your writings. But unfortunately for me I have to read your writings many times over to grasp your meanings. I'm not sure if my mind has lost its spark for understanding clearly over the last 10 years, or if you articulate to extremely. All I do know for sure is, that you are saying things that really connect with my way of thinking, or should I say, the way of thinking that I would have carried on with if I did not become satisfied with my own vision of reality.
Thanks dkane, and may calm logic move your fingers for all to see.
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 03:39 pm

Don't worry about a thing. You already understand what I am saying because you are what I am saying.

And so am I.

So, there's no reason we can't be friends, right?


To all,

I've posted this same post in 3 other philosophy forums. There has been precisely zero response concerning the gist of what I am saying.

Which is:

Scalar relativism has never been applied towards the concepts of gravity and radiant energy.

Why not?

Because of an ingrained "scalar bigotry" that resides inside of all of us, as human beings.

You know what allowed me to come to these realizations?

1) E=mc^2.

All you have to do is rearrange it to produce:

2) m=E/c^2.

This new way of looking at the same old equation leads us to believe that the concept of mass is wholly contained within the concept of energy.

Equation 1 causes us to believe that mass is primary, and that c^2 is the primary "thing" that activates mass. This is an unnecessary complication. Equation 2 is simple yet sublime.

Energy is primordial! Mass is simply a "privation" of Energy!!

What truth could give one greater joy?

I am Energy!

You are Energy!

The Universe is Energy!

Now, let's all get together and be Energetic!!

Dennis Kane
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 05:03 pm
dkane, my wife said that she had to listen to me mention you so much on our last road trip, that you sounded like my long lost friend. LOL.
Also I want to respond to your gist below, but all I can think is, right on!

This is the one thing I thought on my way home late last night, from what you said last week.."inert mass is the true substance and that c^2 is the external law that gives it life". When thinking about my theory about what existed before the "Big Bang", I added your thought about the speed of light giving mass life, by thinking.....

""Aware fell in upon itself at the speed of light(c), filling "eternity and infinity", until "Will"(singularity), sent "Aware" reflecting back upon itself at the speed of light(c).""
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 09:12 am
poppa, do you realize that I said that quote only as an idea that is ridiculous compared to the one that is implicit in m=E/c^2?

The equation, E=mc^2 is unnecessarily complicated because mass and c^2 are external to one another. However, writing the equation the other way, c^2 becomes internal to E. Taking away the c^2 from E, you are left with m. This is what I mean by saying that mass is a "privation" Energy.

Anyways, the equation of your philosophy might be something like this:

poppa's philosophy = (Spinoza + Schopenhauer) * Einstein !?!
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 05:43 pm
I see what you are saying. But for me I like the idea of Aware/mass given life by the influenced of the speed of light, twice, creating energy. It's not so much what you are implying that gets me, its how what you are implying that got my mind once again seeking more. Thanks.
You must understand one thing about me. I believe that all that happen since the so called Big Bang has been documented by others thoroughly and with strong incites. Where I philosophy is, before the Big Bang. I philosophy about what happened in the very beginning that created the womb/medium that the "singularity" expanded into.

Thanks for the perspective you wrote on my philosophy. I have not read or heard of most of the philosophers spoken of in here. But I am enjoying looking them up, as they are mention here.
I like what and agree with what Einstein wrote about Spinoza. Einstein wrote: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"
As for Schopenhauer, I do not agree with what I have read so far. He sounds like an "unthinking reactionary" to me. Or, as the biographer wrote: " Now, whether his pessimism turned him into an ugly person, or whether its just a case of an ugly person adopting the philosophy of pessimism; -- I have no idea." I especially disagree with the premise that man does not have free will, only the creator. I believe as the teachings attributed to Jesus teach, that we are like our father in heaven. Being like, or like an individualized persona of the creator, we have the will to do as we are able.
Now for Einstein. I'm am total in tune with his philosophy that is evident in all his quotes. Also, being conceived within weeks of his death, gives me a feeling of connectedness. I feel I am continuing his work and vision more then I am any other great thinker. I feel very strongly that Einstein gave up most of his freedom of thought, to be part of the University establishment. So, I study all without ever aligning myself with any single way of intellectualizing. I consider all the great thinkers of history speaking of the same thing, but with different perspectives and angles of attack.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Real Ontological Proof
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 07:05:25