Site hosted by Build your free website today!



A Few Thoughts Regarding QUFD

 and Some Philosophical Arguments


In that the very context of the existence of Incorporeality and the Unknown ‘duality-twin’ of all that is Corporeality in and of our world today has been defined and described by QUFD Physics in a new and different perspective than has ever before been addressed by human Philosophy and its various ‘theories’, as I have already noted in the pages of QUFD, such extant and now mostly obsolete philosophical ‘considerations’ thusly do not even apply to any examination of the Unknown and the QUFD ‘interpretation’ of its existence and ‘realities’!  Accordingly, as I have also elsewhere already noted, the Philosophy of QUFD, as put forth on the pages of QUFD and especially in the Main QUFD Document, makes no reference whatsoever to any ‘postulations’ of any currently extant philosophical ‘theory’ other than noting that ‘basic premises’ of and for the Philosophies of Ontology and Epistemology are, in effect, ‘merged’, in the very quantum ‘nature’ of Incorporeality, the Unknown and the QUFD ‘explanation’ thereof!  (Such statement and recognition thereof QUFD, the Unknown and such, is Compliments of the renown Theoretical Physicist Fred Alan Wolf, to Whom this Researcher does accordingly Express My Gratitude!)


However, some recent philosophical ‘considerations’ by B. Gertler have, to a certain extent, ‘crossed over the fence’ from the Known to the Unknown, in accepting the ‘Introspective’ and non-corporeal ‘nature’ of the ‘musings’ of the human Mind and Consciousness as valid criteria for examination of anything from both an Incorporeal and Ontological perspective.  With respect to the ‘considerations’ that she brings up, I wish to hereby ‘voice’ a few pertinent thoughts relative to the Philosophy and Reality of QUFD and the Unknown, that are indirectly ‘touched upon’ by her ‘considerations’.


Although not directly noted in her Document, there is a ‘postulate’ or ‘problematical’, of nominal Philosophical consideration, which requires some explanation and examination here with regard to QUFD and the Unknown.  And that philosophical ‘problem’ is what is known as the ‘Problem of Universals’!


In Philosophy, ‘universals’, as a term and defining nominal, require three (3) ‘Realities’ in order to exist or to be True:

  1. Universals are multiply instantiated, meaning that if there is an ‘instance’ of the existence of one of anything, there must be more (multiples) thereof.
  2. Universals are abstract rather than nominally objective or even subjective, although exclusions may apply.
  3. Universals are the ‘referents’ of general terms.


In answer to this ‘problemicity’, let me Reply, as to Why the very aspect of ‘universals’ cannot be applied nor explained with relation to the Unknown and QUFD.


Criteria #1 above:  Inapplicable, as to Incorporeality, because everything in Incorporeality is instantaneous but only once!  Any further occurrence of something has a completely different etiology and causation, as to such instantiation.  There are no multiple ‘instances’!


Criteria #2 above:  Inapplicable, as to Incorporeality, in that in and of the unitary and wholistic ‘nature’ of Incorporeality (as interpreted into and by Corporeality!), the best that philosophy can do to describe and define the very nature and state of the Unknown, is to define anything Incorporeal/Unknown with relationship to Corporeality and the Known.  But the ‘abstractness’ of unitary instantiation is merely a definitional abstract of Corporeality and not of Incorporeality!  By this reasoning, therefore, the very concept of Incorporeality is but a Corporeal ‘abstract’!  It might be noted here that the ‘occurrence’ of anything within the human Mind might be said to have a ‘duality’ that is simultaneously abstract and non-abstract (in that it – whatever has occurred – can be, and is, perceived by the Mind as either an objective or subjective ‘reality’!)


Criteria #3 above:  No again, in that ‘general terms’ presumes the reality of Criteria 1 and 2 above being true, which they are clearly not with respect here.


If anything, the Problem of Universals is answered by the Resemblance Theory of Philosophy, as applied to the Unknown, where we again are saying that, in order to describe or define anything that is Incorporeal, we can only ‘compare’ or check the ‘resemblance’ of whatever the Incorporeality TO accepted (and understandable!) analogisms of Corporeality.  And thusly do we define the ‘dynamics’ of Incorporeality!


So, in general, here is the ‘gist’ of Resemblance Theory, as applied to the Unknown:

Types, Properties and Relations are Particular Attributes, or Tropes, or abstract particulars, of objects; tropes are capable of resembling each other, and when a large number of tropes do resemble each other, we each (within out minds!) formulate concepts and names which we use to apply to all of the tropes on account of the resemblance that each of us individually sees.  But nothing genuinely universal exists; there are only (1) particulars, including objects and their tropes, and (2) particular collections of tropes, and (3) particular resemblances between particular tropes, or between groups of tropes.


The previously-noted three existence ‘claims’ together make up the Resemblance Theory of Philosophical Inquiry, which could also be called the Trope Theory.  As to this theory’s actual (de re) explanation of the Unknown and Incorporeality… Well, I leave that for the Reader to decide!