The problem of ‘beginning’ ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Axis 1: The problem of beginning is the problem of human thought that there must have a beginning

Axis 2: Thought is not certain but the setback of a human mind is certain to the extent that which is apparent it must have a beginning

Axis 3: Which is apparent thought can claim it ‘true’ due to its appearance; reversely, which is not ‘apparent’ thought cannot claim it ‘false’ because of its non-appearance. A table is apparent means it is true until its depletion; to the contrary, which has made of the table is not apparent doesn’t denote its absence. A table is actually not presentable as ‘apparent’ until the construction has done through the non-apparent elements. Thought about a table is certain because of its constructive appearance; on the opposite, a table can never be true until the non-apparent elements having the quality of connected them to build a table as apparent for thinking. The beginning appearance of a table depends on the connectivity of non-apparent elements, though the reason is unknown for thought that is —why they connected them in a chain to construct a table perceptible. 

Problem of beginning_1

Jwst.nasa.gov: James Webb Space Telescope: Watercolor on paper

… The causal state of apparent can be explainable through cause-effect relation when it appears to perform. Cause-effect is not applicable for which belonged beyond over the causal… The apparent reality could have a beginning; opposite, the cause of this apparent reality might be had a beginning of the beginning, or it might have no beginning.
… … …

Axis 4: Thought is the contrivance of something that is apparent and that could be conjectural through consequences of the verb. The beginning is a functional verb; it depends on the strong conjugation between ‘is’ and the ‘be’. Beginning means ‘is’, and thought about the ‘is’ means ‘be’. Something ‘is’ apparent means something ‘is’ appeared as ‘be‘. Thought can never oscillate until there ‘is’ a beginning of ‘be’ happened, means the ‘being’ of apparent not coming to the appearance. 

Axis 5: Which is apparent is true, so far thought approved its appearance under the precondition that if a ‘is’ is functional then a ‘be’ cannot be stayed dysfunctional. When apparent is possible then appearance cannot stay in the impossible state. Means ‘is’ (apparent) = ‘be’ (appearance) = being of apparent as appearance.

Axis 6: The existence of thought depends on the functional verb ‘is and be’. However, thought cannot say anything about the state when a ‘is’ has stayed in the unrecognized state in a transitive form

Axis 7: Beginning is functional due to its always-apparent functional state. This state appeared problematic for thought because of that: thought cannot clearly say anything when the beginning belongs in the transitive form.

Problem of beginning_4

space.com: Black holes by Nola Taylor Redd

… The beginning is a functional verb; it depends on the strong conjugation between ‘is’ and the ‘be’. Beginning means ‘is’, and thought about the ‘is’ means ‘be’. Something ‘is’ apparent means something ‘is’ appeared as ‘be’. Thought can never oscillate until there ‘is’ a beginning of ‘be’ happened, means the ‘being’ of apparent not coming to the appearance.
… … …

Axis 8: Thought can explain only which is functional but it cannot explain which is transitive to its state through its inner traits. Apparent is explainable when it appears. The causal state of apparent can be explainable through cause-effect relation when it appears to perform. Cause-effect is not applicable for which belonged beyond over the causal. The apparent reality can be explainable considering causal consequences, whereas which is not apparent but belong in the always-possible state of apparent, thought cannot explain that reality through causal consequences. The apparent reality could have a beginning; opposite, the cause of this apparent reality might be had a beginning of the beginning, or it might have no beginning. 

Axis 9: Thought cannot explain the ‘beginning of beginning’ or it cannot interpret the ‘no beginning’ state with clarity. However, these two states could be the reason for the beginning where this apparent reality has stated with its functionality. 

Axis 10: The problem of beginning can be marked as the problem of the problem, but it cannot be marked ‘meaningless’ until thought itself has blocked it to perceive further about the beginning.

Axis 11: Beginning of this apparent reality is unknowable for human thought. The owner of yonder thought (hither humans) was not present there to see how the event (beginning) was happening at this moment. Apparent reality is observer rhetoric, and as well the non-apparent reality; both might belong beyond over the observer. 

Problem of beginning_10

nrc.nl: Waterloo Bridge, London 1901: Claude Monet

… Which is apparent thought can claim it ‘true’ due to its appearance; reversely, which is not ‘apparent’ thought cannot claim it ‘false’ because of its non-appearance. A table is apparent means it is true until its depletion; to the contrary, which has made of the table is not apparent doesn’t denote its absence.
… … …

Axis 12: The problem of beginning is epistemological, as well as the appearance of this apparent reality. Human thought itself the part of epistemology where it is destined to perform as a functional verb. The realistic apprehension is that, —it can perceive and memorize the action between ‘apparent and appearance’ through its neurology. 

Axis 13: The neurology of humans can perceive the apparent reality and express it through signology; however, the neurology of other living organisms perceived the reality as human does, but they cannot express it by signology, or might have a chance that they expressed it according to their signology which yet perplexing for human cognition. 

Axis 14: Signology makes the apparent world real for humans. The question might inevitable there: what makes the apparent reality ‘true’ for all other living organisms that they cannot express as human does (?)

Axis 15: The axis of beginning might stand on the epistemology that is: no necessity to consider the beginning ‘conscious’ or else ‘unconscious’. It is might be ‘as it is’; as has to be ‘as it is’.
… … …

Problem of beginning_5

Milan museum guide.com: Kandinsky–La Collezione del Centre Pompidou

… Thought is not certain but the setback of a human mind is certain to the extent that which is apparent it must have a beginning.
… … … 

Additional Short Notes
Physics can never begin without any presence of things which it could observe for making the further assumption of it. Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’, Schopenhauer’s ‘will’, Heidegger’s ‘being’, Wittgenstein’s ‘substance’, and many other philosophers have touched that ground principle before any physicist addressed this matter seriously that: why things are there rather than nothing.

Without thinking the presence of ‘a priori something’ (with its ‘inner inbuilt trait’; not required to treat God as the inherent creator of this trait) as ‘substance’ of the universe then the universe-building agent cannot appear in reality; reversely, if there is no substance there has been nothing which can make this world viable for physicists. The simple moral is: physics began when physics (I mean the existence of matter in whatever form) are possible

The problem is deep-rooted, that is, we yet circulated among the fence… the universe might have a beginning, or there could be the beginning of a beginning. Philosophy marked the beginning problem a problem of the problem, because, it cannot solve the beginning-problem with plausibility, rather expanded its tail unto the end that there is a beginning of the beginning of a beginning… and blah blah. Meaning: the endless sign of assumptions that is inept to solve the beginning problem of things with a plausible expression.

Problem of beginning_6

msn.com: NASA/ESA/Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), R. Gendler via AP

… We can observe to register the observable, can make assumptions, can going further for a better abstraction, can make pretty hypothesis which sounds logical, but we have the flexibility to consider other’s comments and approach on it. Physics is not a God’s commandment, and the physicist is not here for playing God’s rule. Philosophers have contained some right to raise question where he ends. 
… … … 

According to Wittgenstein, propositions have contained some statement of what we think, in that sense, any thinkable proposition has contained logical structure, and we cannot deny it by saying illogical. Maybe the representation of proposition could feebler than other propositions. Suppose modern scientific theories about the universe might have more rationality than the theological sanguine. Occam’s razor works on that principle. 

Wittgenstein mentioned it with clarity:

If a sign is not necessary then it is meaningless. That is the meaning of Occam’s razor”. [See: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]

The cure meaning is there, it is better to start sensing the presence of something ‘substantial’ that might be always at present and responsible for the endless beginning of
the universe. Reversely, for this substantial, the universe is eternal to its state, with its cyclic change and evolution. No necessity to consider it (the universe) is ‘conscious’ or else the ‘unconscious’. It is ‘as it is’; as has to be ‘as it is’. Kant explained it with lucid preference: we can say about ‘how is this’ (mean the presence of things or for argument’s sake the universe) but cannot say ‘what is this’. We can explain the inner connectivity of a thing but cannot explain why it contains this trait by self. Since we were not present at the beginning (suppose the physicist’s claimant about Big bang) moment, we could make an assumption but cannot assuredly claim this Big bang is the beginning of everything. 

Problem of beginning_7

Wikiquote: Wassily Kandinsky’s ‘Improvisation with Horses/Cossacks

… The problem is deep-rooted, that is, we yet circulated among the fence… the universe might have a beginning, or there could be the beginning of a beginning. Philosophy marked the beginning problem a problem of the problem, because, it cannot solve the beginning-problem with plausibility, rather expanded its tail unto the end that there is a beginning of the beginning of a beginning. Meaning: the endless sign of assumptions that is inept to solve the beginning problem of things with a plausible expression. 
… … …

Our perception of the world is ‘observer rhetoric‘. John Archibald Wheeler named it ‘information theoretic‘. We can assume that the universe is coming ‘from bit’, but tough for us saying: why it from the bit? If we observe the world it appeared meaningful to us; if we do not observe it, nothing remains which can make us physicist or philosopher. The problem is epistemological. Wheeler mentioned the problem in his book in light of his delayed choice:

Reality is theory.” What we call “reality,” that vision of the universe that is so vivid in our minds, we plaster in between a few iron posts of observation by an elaborate labor of imagination and theory. We have no more right to say, “What the photon is doing” —until it is registered —than we do to say, “what word is in the room” —until the game of question and response is terminated.” [See: Beyond the Black hole]

We can observe to register the observable, can make assumptions, can going further for a better abstraction, can make pretty hypothesis which sounds logical, but we have the flexibility to consider other’s comments and approach on it. Physics is not a God’s commandment, and the physicist is not here for playing God’s rule. Philosophers have contained some right to raise question where he ends

Shut the door in excuse of pragmatism is not a solution at all. The pragmatism of some modern physicist (not all: still there is Roger Penrose alive to hear other’s comments with passionate consideration despite the blame that he promoted pseudoscience.) as well indicate their prejudice to allow others in their prestigious room.
… … …

Problem of beginning_9
Claude Monet gallery: Twilight Venice: Claude Monet
… Which is apparent is true, so far thought approved its appearance under the precondition that if a ‘is’ is functional then a ‘be’ cannot be stayed dysfunctional. When apparent is possible then appearance cannot stay in the impossible state. Means ‘is’ (apparent) = ‘be’ (appearance) = being of apparent as appearance…
Advertisements