Tag Archives: ontology


I believe everything is physical. I also believe that the physical is a priori. So I believe what are commonly called the mind, self and soul also derive from the physical and physical processes.

There are things. And there is space. Space is also seemingly a singular thing. These are the physical things. The physical processes is time or the measure of it.

Everyday and at every moment, I reaffirm this and see it as a kind of mysticism.

Be, being, becoming

I don’t like the to in to be or to with any other infinitive for that matter. It entails movement when the infinitive indicates anything but movement or change. I am or it is are to indicate a state that in reality does not exist.

Being is to indicate a state over time. So this is closer to what is true of the reality.

Becoming is what is what we always do. But that too is an illusion. Becoming is what we perceive when the reality “sees” none. Becoming is therefore a value.

The Philosophy of Tennis

When we play tennis not only we are interacting with the reality, we are assuming that the reality will behave in a certain way. I doubt I will get very far by just contemplating the nature of the ball, the court surface, or the springiness of the string gut. But rather by interacting with the reality, I prove my understanding of it.

Knowing the limitation of my movement, my opponent’s, the way the ball behaves against the racket strings and court surface, the way the ball travels through the air with spin, I try to defeat my opponent. My performance is proof of this understanding.

In some ways Donald Trump’s actions are also proof of his understanding of the world. He uses it to “deceive” not only others but himself as well. I do not mean he is a bad person, but that is doing what we as humans do best – to achieve the most with what we have. So know ing what to do as a human, a cat, a religion is really proof. To me, this is a kind of (my kind of) objectivity.

OOO and objects

In OOO all object are said to be on equal footing. The question though is whether it is equally 0 or equally 1.

I tend to think it is without value whatsoever except for a value produced by systematic difference between them. This difference, and therefore value, exists only when observations are made.

It therefore means if there is no observer there is no value in the situation.

So, what exactly is an observer is now the question.

One system?

The other day a fatal accident occurred on a highway in Japan where the car somehow skidded and launched itself into the air jumping the median strip and ramming into an oncoming bus. The all passengers on the bus, including the bus driver, survived. This is a prime example of our understanding of objects. Objects never occupy the same space as another object. Any attempt to do so will end in tragedy.

Objects “occupy” space in predictable manner. Something that I do not believe anyone has pointed out is that a point in space can either be space or object, never both. So in reality, an object in space and time are predictable. There is only one space and one time. There is no reverse. And there is no fast forward. Time is steady and predictable as well.

There is inherent stability and predictability to object, space and time. If this never changes, then can we conclude that object, space and time are one thing, or at least one system?