The Philosophy of Life Before Death and Afterwards

Natural Philosophy

Natural Philosophy

This section is a little more complex than any other section in the book. Here in some of these essays are my personal theories about topics in neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, theoretical physics, pharmacology, computer science and many other scientific fields. I provided citations for my claims in these essays and I don't expect you to understand most of the terms I might use in some of these essays, which is okay. They're easy enough to Google and understand, which is why you have a week to read the essay or however long it takes you to choose to read it. I would provide a definitions section, but I just don't necessarily know what may or may not be undefined for a particular reader. So here in this introductory preface, I will say outright that I consider myself an amateur in each of these fields. I'm not a paid professional or a scientist in any of these fields. I think it's worth seeing how using pure philosophy could derive some fundamental answers from the nature of reality, if it could, without mathematics in a reader friendly format.

In essence, reading any Wikipedia page about a science article is a game of context, domain knowledge and research skills. Having an ever-expanding human endowed consciousness of information and moderation, Wikipedia is quickly becoming one of the ultimate sources of information to learn about science and advanced topics in science. By knowing what you're looking for in what you're reading, knowing about the domain of whatever scientific field you're studying (either formally or through Wikipedia and other sources on the internet), and having the capability to research proficiently, you can do what I did and at least theorize about some of these problems in physics or medicine, some examples of what I write about in this section.

I would say my aptitude with all of these things is standard but would be improved by a better understanding of statistics, search engine algorithms and other mathematical and computational domains. Then I would have some surety in my theories beyond some consensus knowledge that a researcher happens to find and synthesize into some philosophical essays. Still, informal philosophy doesn't necessarily derive its own credibility on pure mathematics, as the world exists in a physical-abstract sense. Language came before mathematics and so did philosophy, which always leads us to discussion about any topic, whether it be entirely empirical or not.

Because the empirical at face value can sometimes be illusory, what we might expect to happen doesn't, which requires theorization and forays into new types of thoughts about the true nature of reality. When the rest the world was suggesting an Earth centric theory of a solar system because it seemed like everything revolved around Earth due to cultural and theological tradition, first Aristarchus and then Copernicus proposed theories and gave evidence for why the Earth revolved around the Sun. Copernicus was rebuked by the Catholics at the time and Galileo would later be persecuted for propagating a picture of what the empirical model of the solar system was irrespective of our geostationary perspective.

The idea then in this example wasn't exactly new, but the case in point I'm trying to make is that new ideas should be heard of when it comes to the empirical. We shouldn't stamp down or look down upon new philosophical forays into science with or without mathematics. Galileo and Copernicus could have only hoped to make their arguments with the help of precise and exact calculations or evidence, otherwise they would have no basis to stand upon. Today, we can ask new questions about fields that don't even necessarily have some mathematical or empirical basis that we have even discovered.

How is one supposed to calculate how dark energy or dark matter would interact with baryonic matter in some transubstantiated form, as if to power baryonic matter? Now we're going past the event horizon of the black hole singularity that is empiricism. As we search deeper and deeper for answers, we get no closer to an obvious means to solving everything in any scientific field. As a singularitarian, my core argument is computational power will win over everything. I believe that it will require a technological singularity to answer questions like those and find the solutions to all of our problems. In the case that we can't do achieve