My paradigm

Because everyone is entitled to have my opinion.

So, what is fundamentalism anyway?

For those expecting to find something on this site about terrorism, I have to disappoint you. Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In fact an Islamic terrorists is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. It is quite obvious, based on Islamic scripture, that all actions which fall under terrorism are forbidden. Those terrorists constantly violate numerous Islamic rules through their actions.

No, the fundamentals I wish to bring up here is something different. Fundamentalism means to stick to the fundamentals of an idea, ideology, movement. So depending on which it refers, it can have different meanings. Right here what I'd meant it to refer to, are some fundamental concepts which are vital to inter-religious debate. I'm going to post my views on some commonly misunderstood terms. People have different philosophical approaches on these terms, and have a tendency to "cling" on fundamentally to these intuitive interpretations. And since they are cornerstones to understanding overlapping fields of religion and science, to show you my take on them is vital to understanding my paradigm. At first this page may seem incoherently, jumping from one subject to another, but I'll refer to this page on several other pages. Hopefully, in the end its purpose and function here will be clear.

So, what is infinity anyway?

Infinity is not an amount or number, it is a concept. They do work with infinity as a number in calculus, and it provides some limited results, but thats working from axioms, that hardly proves infinity is a realistic amount or number. An amount, or number suggest some sort of limit. Infinity on the other hand suggests that there are no limits. In human history; we have never ever encountered anything that is truly infinite. Not a single thing, we have no reason to believe infinity exist within this universe. Some say space is infinitely big, but scientists disagree. Scientist say space, or our universe has a limited boundary. They do also say that that boundary is constantly expanding faster then the speed of light. But nevertheless, that still means that at any instant, space has a limited size, rather then an infinite one.

What about infinitely small? Existence of infinitely small things -and this is how infinity occurs most in math- is based on the assumption objects can be infinitely divided into smaller components. However most objects lose their qualities after division. If you cut an A4 paper into two halves, you can fold a plain with one half. If you then cut the remainder half in two halves again, you could fold a plain with the quarter piece, and so one. After a few cuts, you'll find that paper loses it's quality: "fold-able into plain". The world of the very small isn't the same as the world we experience. An amoeba for example, hardly experiences any gravity. To it, if it were conscious, going upwards is similar as to going downwards. The surface tension however, plays a much stronger role in it's life as opposed to our lives.


Which brings me to another example of characteristics not being intrinsic to the smallest parts of an object. If you cut a water drop into two halves you have two drops, you can do this and eventually end up with several droplets; but after a while, water will no longer form drops anymore. To understand why, consider the surface tension. Water consists of H2O molecules. these molecules are slightly polar. The O-atom pulls on the electrons of the covalent bind harder then the H-atoms do. This makes the O-side of the molecule delta negative, and the H-side delta positive. (Delta, since it's only a fraction of a negative unit). This causes a forcefield in between different molecules that creates tension at the surface of the liquid. So from the moment there aren't enough molecules anymore, the tension isn't strong enough to form a droplet. A single molecule has no surface tension at all, and if you divide the molecule into atoms, even the delta charges will disappear. 

Now, getting back on topic of infinity small parts. who is to say divisibility is a characteristic that is always held by the smaller parts? Who is to say that any object is infinitely dividable?

So, what is causality anyway?

Well a lot of people take causality for granted, but the truth is, we don't know what causality is. Well many scientists have some ideas, but so far, none of the ideas made it into a coherent scientific theory. The problem with science and causality goes back to the very fundamentals of science. Science is based on empirical testing. That means we examen things, examine how actions cause reaction, and then pour that data into a workable formula. We can examine the ratio of how things interact trough that method, we can also find out when things do, and when they don't work. But we can't find out why things are correlated!

Take gravity for example, the force that we are most familiar with. We have no idea what causes gravity.

  • Newton discovered that gravity is somehow related to mass. And that gravity is some sort of force between all objects that have mass. He even figured out the ratio of how strong the force is compared to how much mass an object has, and how far from other objects something is. What causes this, is however unknown.
  • Einstein later redefined the problem by saying that objects with mass cause geodesic lines in space-time which in turn other objects with mass will follow. Why this occurs, is again unknown.
  • Later in quantum mechanics, the standard model predicted a new messenger particle: the graviton which would cause gravity. To date the particle has not yet been found, and even if it would be found, the question remains, what causes mass to emit this particle, and how does this particle cause attraction between objects?
  • Nowadays string theory suggests the all particles are actually strings instead of points. The effect and characteristics of a specific particle would be caused by the way it vibrates. They speculate that the graviton is the only closed string (like a loop, as opposed to other particles being open ended strings) which is why it's so hard to catch it in experiments. However the question still remains: why? Why does it vibrate in that specific way; and why does this string cause what we experience as gravity?

A similar argument can be made for the other 3 known forces, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force. In the end science falls short to explain them. So that is where personal belief steps in. Some believe these characteristics are intrinsic. I don't. As I explained earlier in the section about infinity, many characteristics of objects seem intrinsic at first, but then turn out not to be when examining smaller parts. So why would we assume that the four fundamental laws of physics are intrinsic to energy, to particles? 

So, what is random anyway?

Random has two different meanings, that are often mixed:
1. The first meaning, is the strict scientific meaning of the word, that something is without cause. In other words, something occurs without another thing causing it to happen. True randomness.
2. The second, more popular definition; is when something happens due to a cause that is to complex for us to calculate. This is more an apparent randomness rather then a true randomness.

Rolling a dice for example, is not truly random. The outcome of the dice is determined by the position you first held it in, the strength of your throw, the surface on which you threw it, and so on. Although these things are to complex to predict, it is nevertheless still causal. We have in all of human existence, never encountered something which we have proven to be truly random. And that's natural, since you can't proof true randomness. To prove true randomness, you would have to prove their is no cause. But you cannot prove something doesn't exist, can you?  Of course that isn't to say there are candidates. Some speculate for example that electrons in quantum mechanics behave randomly. That is however debatable, and many scientist do believe that there is an underlying cause for the behaviour of electrons. In other words, the belief that chaos is an order we fail to understand. 

So, what is a miracle anyway?

Under this alternative view of causality, one would also have an alternative view on what the definition of a miracle is. Often we assume that a scientific explanation of events, somehow robs it of its miraculousness. But none of these explanations show us why things happen, only show us how they happen. So they should be equally miraculous as we would consider metaphysical events miraculous. Why should they make us consider the occurrence of these events less wonderful? That also gives a new perspective to the plausibility of metaphysical occurrences. If just because a phenomena is described it should not be considered less wonderful, then so to should we consider un-described or events equally plausible to occur.

So, what is existence anyway?

Well there's many things to say regarding existence. The philosophy of existence ties in to my page regarding time. If eternalism is true over presentism, that forces us to change our definition of what existence means. More about that here. Well since I have a special page dedicated to that, I will not go into that argument any further at this place.

But what I really wanted to discuss here, is the domain of existence. Domain is a term that many will probably know from mathematics again, but it also exists in philosophy.  As an example, if you have a concept, like prime-numbers, then you can form a domain of that concept. The domain is the group of all things (in this case numbers) which follow the definition. You can describe a domain either by listing the items in it, like so: P={1,2,3,5,7,13,17,...)
That is of course problematic when the domain is infinity big. So alternatively you can just describe the characteristics that each member of the domain should have, like so: P={a: a∊ℕ; (∀ b: b∊ℕ) a/b=a ∨ a/b=1 ∨ (a/b)∉ℕ}
In English: The domain of Prime-numbers = { All numbers "a", for which goes:

  1. a is a natural number
  2. for every existing natural number b, a/b is either equal to a, or equal to 1, or not a natural number}

We can also use these domains to list concepts. For example the domain S, for scientific laws:
S={f=ma, P=UI, E=mc², ...}
S={l: l=[LAW]; l is based on empirical testing; l is falsifiable; l predicts testable results}

Now getting back to "existence". Some people are inclined to believe that the domain for existing things "E" contains only those things which are scientifically testable. E={a: a is [REAL]; a is empirically testable}. This however is illogical. Take Higgs particles for example. I'll explain in more detail what they are in the next page for now, you need to know it's a hypothetical particle proposed by the standardized theory. They are currently attempting to detect it in CERN with a machine called: the Large Hadron Collider. Now consider the possibilities. Either it doesn't exist, and we will never detect it. another possibility is that it exist and we will detect it. But there is also a third possibility, that it does exist, but that we will never detect it though. Perhaps it is intrinsic to the nature of the Higgs-boson to be undetectable. The particle definitely is elusive in nature, and has been jokingly called "the god particle".  Getting back to my point now, it is possible, and very plausible that the Higgs particle exists, yet according to the previously mentioned definition, it falls outside the domain of existence. Therefore the logically correct domain for existence should also include those things that do exist, but which we are uncertain of. Of course there's no way of knowing which of the "possible existing things" need be added to the domain. But the least we could do, is refrain from excluding all possible existing things from the domain. Nothing forbids you to label a sub-domain of existence, namely "proven existence" from which you can exclude them. So the correct domains should be:

Existence={a: a is [REAL]}
Proven Existence={a: a is [REAL]; a is empirically testable}

Another important part of the philosophy of existence is the duality of body and soul. As I show here I'm quite convinced, based on philosophical proofs regarding the nature of time that there exists some sort of mind-body duality. People might disagree on what this soul actually is, but it's quite clear that according to eternalism, or from the four-dimensional picture of time, our consciousness is a separate entity from our physical body. It opens the door to understanding many parts of the human psyche that are still covered in mystery. How do we store memories for example? Well we know that we use a neural network, and we know where in our brain that's located, but how does that network "store" anything? How do we read that data? Are our dreams stored trough the same process, and how are we able to tell the difference afterwards?


Big bang page: Added paragraph regarding Baum-Frampton model.
My beliefs page: Added parts about miracles of the Qur'an.
Fourdimensionalism page: Expanded the mathematical explenation of physics of light, with added formulas.
Fourdimensionalism page: Cleaned up some images, the one with the satellite orbeting earth.
Sidebar: Added new flag-images. The flags are now also clickable as link.
My beliefs page: Corrected a few more spelling and grammar errors.