Philosophy of Nature for Everyone

We must start from the premise that the philosophy of nature, simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional in sequences or parts, as the case may be, is a philosophy that follows nature in its generality. On one hand as the known—quanta, atoms, molecules, plants or animals, etc.—and on the other, knowledge as human or science, respectively the human as extra-science or extrapolation of science as metaphor. These understandings of meaning help us to know, encompass, and define the two specific variants of nature as paradox/antiparadox or their “illogical”/logical states. Where and when the paradox is an illogical and the antiparadox is their logic.

In this context, nature varies as the nature of its known as anti-knowledge and the nature of its known as anti-known or science. Where and when one is the extrapolation of the other, as the case may be, as paradox/antiparadox, and science in its variants as perception or metaphor. As perception: mathematics, physics, astronomy or astrophysics, medicine or biology, literature or psychology, etc.; as metaphor: religion, parapsychology, spiritism or telepathy, etc. In any of their general or particular forms. As perception, science appears exact or precise; as metaphor, it is merely an extrapolation of the respective perceptions.

These understandings of meaning imply that we should not separate the nature we are and in which we exist, as its known, from the human and its science—namely the known or knowledge as human or scientific nature. In other words, we start from Lavoisier’s limited principle of nature, with laws, norms, and opposites—human or scientific—that “cancel each other out,” through our conventions or those of other contents and entities/universe. A principle that we generalize and which respects the principles and rules of nature, with opposites that do not “cancel each other out,” as simultaneously/dialectically known and unconventional in sequences or parts.

It includes nature’s principles and rules, with opposites that do not “cancel each other out” through our conventions or those of other contents as entities/universe. As harmony and normality of the paradox of simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional nature, where and when dialectic, truth, or revelation, etc., apply. Respecting all their general or particular forms, including the paradox of the perfect/”imperfect” or limited/anti-limited, conventional/anti-conventional, absolute/relative, good/evil, ugly/beautiful, etc. As struggle, becoming or transformation of opposites that “cancel each other out” but also those that do not “cancel each other out” of the “imperfect” perfection that we are and in which we exist as humanoid or only andruid nature.

Respecting Lavoisier’s principle which says, “in nature, nothing is lost, nothing is gained, everything is transformed,” referring to substance in the classical sense. But also its generalization which says, “in nature, nothing is lost, nothing is gained, everything becomes and is transformed perfect/‘imperfect’ as paradox/antiparadox or their illogical/logical.”

Considering also that Lavoisier’s substance, in the classical sense, lacks psyche as substance or spirit as existence, as perceived science, while as a metaphor of science, substance does not exist or is completely neglected. Even if any entity of a content as nature is an existence, form, and spirit or substance with configuration and psyche, as simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional sequences or parts, as the case may be.

Let us remember that Einstein says the essence of the world is love, as the bond of all entities, substances, or universes, or that medicine acknowledges a psyche of substance even if it doesn’t mention or connect it to the psyche or emitter-receivers with our or their ideas. Einstein’s substance or relativity lacks love, psyche, or spirit, etc., even though he believes in the essence of love as existence.

In other words, in the world of perceived science, spirit does not exist as existence, and as metaphor, substance does not exist, even though it exists and even beyond us. Or if it does, it is not taken into account by religion or spirit by perceived sciences—unlike its generalization as existence/form/spirit of simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional nature of sequences or parts, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, to have good communication in the sense of our discussions, it is necessary to establish common conventions—a dictionary of our understandings as meanings—not before making a few essential clarifications. According to the philosophy of nature—simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional sequences or parts—we have defined science through our conventions according to nature’s capacity to perceive or create extrapolations of perception as metaphor.

To distinguish between the instant of our perceptions as direct senses—hearing, sight, etc.—as centers of vibration/direct resonance in contact with the nature we are and in which we exist, and the indirect ones—brain or centers of indirect vibration/resonance—which are not in direct contact with that nature. Thus, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, etc., are perceived sciences, measurable and precise, while religion, alchemy, parapsychology, astrology, telepathy, etc., are sciences as metaphor or perceived extra-sciences.

Therefore, even if all are sciences, we must not confuse the human and science with the known of nature that we are or in which we exist. As proof, we cannot confuse reflexes, intuition and instincts, feelings, emotions, or experiences of nature with thoughts and ideas of any content or entity/universe. Which we cannot consider, encompass, or define as science, measure, or measurable, in the classical or unconventional sense.

At the same time, we cannot confuse the human with science or vice versa, considering the perception and metaphor that encompass or define them.

Here are a few examples of the differences between classical philosophies and that of simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional nature. Starting from the generalization of Lavoisier’s principle toward its broader form. Without exaggerating the value of our understandings as conventional meanings—even if for now they are merely an extra-conventional form of classical ones—as extrapolation or metaphor. At the same time, limiting the tendency to exaggerate these generalizations to a philosophy of nature and not to a general Philosophy of Nature. Similarly, limiting generalization to uniqueness and its particularity, and not to Uniqueness or God, as the case may be. Uniqueness or God to which no content, entity/universe, body or object/phenomenon, etc., can ever reach—anytime, anywhere, or anyhow.

Mathematics, but also religion, science as perception or metaphor in general, are full of limits, exceptions, indeterminate, well-defined entities, invariability or constancy, absurd or “impossible,” etc. Unlike the unconventional simultaneous/dialectic nature that excludes neither the variant of human or scientific knowledge nor that of the known of nature. The former with opposites that “cancel each other out,” the latter with opposites that do not, as paradox/antiparadox, logical/“illogical,” or perfect/“imperfect” of them.

1. Thus in mathematics,
     1 – 1 = 0,
   a very clear example of opposites that “cancel each other out,” and which does not even respect Lavoisier’s limited principle related to substance. It is absurd if not “impossible” to believe or say that a slap given “cancels out” a slap received. Even if Christian theism believes one can turn the other cheek to nullify the first. Or that the laws and norms of justice believe and state that a compensation—monetary or in kind—can cancel experiences, feelings, or emotions, let alone irrecoverable losses.
2. There are no well-defined entities, constant or invariable, etc. In other words, the speed of light depends on the medium, “pi” is periodic or indeterminate, atoms and molecules are neither constant nor equal or identical, do not occupy the same space/time, do not and cannot have the same spin, and are dependent on their unlimited internal and external universe with their full atomic or molecular structure.
3. In mathematics and beyond, there are cases of indeterminacy not because they exist as nature, but because we, through our mathematical conventions, do not specify their nature. That is:
     1 ÷ ∞ = 0,
   even though mathematically, its inverse:
     0 × ∞ = indeterminate.
   The indeterminacy arises because the nature of zero and infinity is not specified—not for any other reason.

That is:
  11 ÷ ∞₁ = 01,
and the reverse is obviously correct:
  11 = 01 × ∞₁.
Meaning we cannot believe or claim that grinding a stone, atom or molecule, human, plant or animal, planet or galaxy, etc., can yield sequences or parts of another nature. Which, in reverse, implies that such sequences or parts must and do form the same whole, as the case may be. An evident truth shown even in our mathematical formula.

That is, it is absurd or “impossible” that the divisions or multiplications of any content or entity/universe, body or object/phenomenon, etc., be of a different nature than the multiplied or divided content or body—regardless of nature, situation, or organization.

We apologize for our conventional and unconventional limitations—this is an entire philosophy that follows nature in its limitless known/known-being, not just the human and science as limited perception or metaphor. Even though science in its generality has been and remains a necessity for understanding meaning throughout existence, nature does not know what addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, integrals, composition laws, vectors, etc., are. Even though it is all these things in a simplicity infinitely small and large, to which we or other contents cannot reach.

Nature in its limited generality—not as Nature, Unity, or God—known/known-being is perfect/”imperfect”, just like us or any content, in its simplicity. Unfortunately, we—any content, entity/universe, body or object/phenomenon—complicate the works or workings of nature, because we are limited and cannot encompass, know, or define its and our boundlessness.

A philosophy that places any convention equally with its extra-convention, any convention with its anti-convention, or any non-convention with its anti-non-convention, etc., as truth, dialectic, or revelation, etc. In other words, the simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional nature of any logical/illogical, paradox/antiparadox, or perfect/”imperfect” as our and their known/known-being nature