Metaphysics 101, or
(Or a lack of 25 cows plus 2 cats and a dead
Above (One Plus One) = WHUT?
One plus one equals two. Right? Are you sure?..
What if I asked you to deny it. You could verbally
deny it. You could use the words "One plus one
does not equal two." Would you really believe
that one & one does not equal two, even if you
say it to me in a tone of complete conviction? .
If I put you under interrogation, just like in the
spy flicks, and made you quite uncomfortable
until you say "One and One is NOT two", would
you actually in your whole being believe it?
It may take quite of bit of physical pain or
discomfort for you to believe it, not just say it.
When we examine the thesis one plus one equals
two, or any other simple mathematical equation,
we can say we are absolutely certain that it is
true. There is not one even hint of a doubt in our
minds about it. The contradictory of this
mathematical proposition (equation) is
Well, why are we so sure? Implicitly and not
explicitly in our minds we reason thusly:
What is a one? A one is a single entity with its
own unity apart from other single entities or
unities. The white cat which just jumped on my
lap is a unity.. It is one cat. It is separate in
existence from all other cats. Now another cat,
which looks quite like the other cat, but is a
separate unity just jumped onto my lap. Now
one cat plus another separate cat equals 2 cats.
Two single unities are on my lap.
My lap is getting crowded and uncomfortable,
(for each of these individuals, separate in
existence, together with the other one are
bothersome.) I decide to chase one of these
individual unities from my lap. Now I have only
one of the two there. Two minus one equals one.
We are absolutely certain of this.
Now it is clear that each cat, can be considered a
separate being from the other. Although they
both depend on each other for comfort and
company at times, they are in the world of
existing things physically separate from each
other. Each is its own unity. All of the parts of
the individual cat unit work together to create a
harmony which is the total one cat. All the
individual parts work together for the good of
the whole unit cat.
Their eyes and sense of smell work to recognize
their cat food. Their teeth work to grind the food
so it is easier for it to go to the stomach and be
digested. The digested nourishment goes into
the blood to circulate to make muscles, the
eyes, and all the organs function..
When all the parts of the cat work together for
the good of the whole cat, you have a unified
being, a unity, a one. The cat unity and other
animal units can live without some of their parts
which are less essential to their being alive,
but parts which are by nature supposed to
complete the cat unity.
We all have seen animals with limbs or ears
missing who seem to get along quite well. We
have also heard of sad stories of animals which
have lost essential parts, such as an essential
amount of blood to sustain life. This will cause
the whole unity of the animal to be destroyed,
and the parts will no longer work in any type of
harmony. This unit being decomposes. It does
not exist as a unit being any more.
We call this death of the animal. In death the
parts separate into their own component parts.
Each animal is composed of a cooperative group
of organs which in turn are composed of cells.
Each cell is then composed of its own parts,
which upon death of the whole animal separate
into the basic compounds and elements which
were formerly part of the cooperative unity
(cat), which was once the living animal.
The organs of the animal cease to work in unity,
and the individual animal becomes individual
substances and chemical units, not working at all
for the good of the whole animal. In nature
these units usually become part of another unity,
to help in its maintaining its internal harmony &
existence as a ONE.
For example, the animal dies, and its
decomposed parts are used to nourish and
become, for instance, part of a tree under which
the decomposing the animal may have been
Notice the term decomposing. To compose: to
make parts into a harmonious unity. Beethoven
took individual sounds or notes to create a
beautiful harmonious unity.
We could cut out the individual notes of a written
Beethoven piece and haphazardly shake them
up, and give the pile to a Rock Star.. He may
use the same notes, but his unique unity of them
can produce a different unity, using the same
notes Beethoven used but in a totally different
combination. This will create a totally different
unity, or piece of music. (May we call the latter
activity the "decomposing of Beethoven’s
So now we know what a one is.. A one apple, a
one animal. Sometimes, as in plants, we can’t
tell where the unity begins, i.e. if the plant we
see is a unity or part of a unity. Grass is an
example of the confusion of where an individual
plant begins or ends. This fact, however, does
not mean that we can’t recognize a real unity
when we see it clearly, like that unit deer which
runs across the road in front of our car.
So now we know why we believe one plus one
equals two and also know we are deadly certain
of this fact. We have an idea of what the unity of
a material being is which creates the "one"..
Next: Zero cannot equal one, or something cannot come from nothing.
A unity something, like a cat, let us call a one..
Something is an existent, that is something is
real and exists. We can count it.
Each something that we know in the material
world has its limits. It extends just so far. It has
so much density, bulk , etc. It is composed of
just so many molecules, cells and no more. For
example, a duck. We know the duck in our yard
is an existing thing. We know it is a unit, a
unified biological thing. All of the ducks parts
work together, the kidneys, liver, work together,
not ultimately for their own good primarily, but
the good of the duck as a whole..
Parts of anything also can be composed of parts.
The parts of a duck liver all work together for the
good of the liver, which itself works together for
the good of the whole unit duck.
Those parts work for the liver as if the liver were
an end in itself, and not part of the duck. When
the poor duck dies, the liver dies and its parts
also. The parts of the liver, cells, have parts also
which work together for the good of the cell
itself. We can break down a material thing to its
most basic element, which of course cannot go
back to infinity, but must stop somewhere. The
basic unit of matter, whatever that is. It may be
an electron which fortuitously revolves inside of
an atom, or something else. That ultimate part
of matter in inimical to our investigation here, so
let us put it aside.
The unit one duck is limited by what it is. Limited
means it has so much, and no more to it. To be
a duck means a lack of rational thought, lack of
the ability to seek large prey like antelopes,
partly because its small bulk and strength, and
its limited inborn equipment. We know a duck
not only has what it has as qualities, but it is
also noted by its lack of many qualities. This is
how we recognize the duck unit’s duckness, by
what functions it has and those it lacks.
Limitation goes with every material thing we
know, also to parts of the things we know. What
a thing is creates its positive qualities and
perfections, but also its lack of other qualities.
Limitation states that the being can possess this
much and no more.
Now we have a unit, a being which exists in
reality and is limited to what it is. for let us call
that which exists and exists as something, a
being. Being is a term we will use to denote
what we have defined above.
Much ado about Nothing:
Now besides being, what else can we have in our
world. We have hear the terms nothing,
nothingness and non-being. All these terms refer
to something, but not a being. They refer to lack
of being. This is confusing, for all the terms we
use seem to point to real existing beings,
and some think "nothing" is a something.
The term nothing does not refer to being or any
part of a being. Nothing refers to lack of being.
We call the term "nothing" a "being of reason".
Lack of being is real, but does not exist in itself.
We need a term to refer to this state, so we use
the term nothing,(no thing) . The term nothing
or non-being is not a type of anything, like a dog
is a type of animal. Neither is it a positive entity.
It lacks existence and lacks existing as
A dog may have a missing leg. Well, the missing
leg is nonbeing; it doesn’t exist. Existing: the
dog. Not existing: the leg. Being: the dog. Non-
being: the leg that is not there.
Zero is written sign of mathematics which refers
to lack of existence of something. If I have zero
apples. I have no apples at all. If I have one
apple, I have an existing being, an apple. If I
have zero in my bank account, can I write a
cashable check for $100?.. No, the check would
bounce, for zero, lack of money, cannot equal
100 which is some amount of money. No amount
of concentration on our part or hoping or
wishing, can make 100 pop out of absolutely
Some say that in mathematics there is not only
a zero, but minus numbers, such as -2, -3, etc.
Let us examine the existential reality of a minus
number. Can a -1 exist in reality as a being?
It seems as if one adds a "plus" number, such as
+1 , +2, +3 to a minus number, you get a
number which is less than the plus number.. +3
-2 equals + 1. This equation can be also shown
as -2 + 3 equals + 1. The answer is the same for
each + 1.
Let us examine the "reality" or existence" of the
numeral which is in a minus number. A minus
number such as - 23 would not refer to existing
beings, like 23 cows, dogs. It would point to a
lack of existing beings. Therefore a minus
number would denote a type of nothingness, a
lack. - 23 cows refers to a lack of cows. We have
cattle pen and it can hold 23 cows, and it has no
cows in it, a nothingness of cows. In this case we
have -23 cows. So the minus numbers point to a
lack of beings. Theoretically zero cows. But we
use -23 in practical matters to denote a certain
amount of cows that have been taken away,
All, in all, minus numbers don’t point to any
existing unified beings, as do plus numbers.
Can zero make a one.? If we have an absolutely
nothing, a zero.. Can we make from that zero
alone a positive number of things? The answer is
no. Lack of being cannot by itself make being.
Zero, by itself, cannot make a one. So let us put
this statement "zero cannot equal one" itself in
the following judgements which are another way
of stating "zero cannot equal one".
These judgements would be:
Something cannot come from nothing.
A being cannot give what it does not have.
Non-being yields nothing.
Zero cannot yield one, two, or any positive
Apples and No Oranges
If we have one of something, like one apple, can
that one complete apple make 2 complete
apples? I do not mean making two apples by
cutting the original in half and making two
apples. If we did that, we would not really have
2 apples, but still one apple cut into 2 halves.
The matter making up the one apple is now cut
into two parts, leaving a smaller amount of
matter in each half than was in the whole. Here
when we say one apple cannot yield two apples,
we mean that two apples would mean two
complete apples with the approximate amount of
matter in each of the two apples that was in only
Can the one apple of itself, without incorporation
of any other matter or power than it has, make 2
complete apples with the new additional apple
having the same amount of matter as the first?
If we say yes to the one apple by itself making
two complete apples, we imply that something
can come from absolutely nothing. We are then
saying 2 complete objects can yield 3 complete
objects, or 4, etc.. If zero of itself cannot equal
one, neither can one yield 2 or more..
One may object saying that one apple, if its seed
goes to the ground and sprouts into a tree,
produces more apples; in this way one apple can
produce two or three.
That is not our meaning. In the above case, the
one seed from the apple will need to incorporate
into itself water and nutrients to grow into a
tree. In the above case there is more matter
added to the apple to make the tree and new
apples. If the seed were left alone, no water, no
material additions of any kind, the seed could
not of itself grow into anything at all..
Healthy "Bouncing" Baby
If we visit a neighbor whose baby weighed eight
pounds at birth, and now weighs a healthy 15
pounds, could we assume the baby, without any
additions or help became this way? In reality,
the baby would have to incorporated
nourishment and other care outside of itself to
grow and gain weight. If we thought that the
baby just did this alone, without food, water,
etc. and told others this opinion, we would be
thought quite illogical.
Although we learn through our senses, this is not
because we know just by life’s experience of
watching other children grow, but because our
mind can grasp that something cannot come
An 8 lb baby has a certain amount of material
components. To get to be 15 pounds, the baby
needs more material components which it does
not have at the time of birth. These components
cannot come from said baby itself, for something
cannot come from nothing. 8 of itself cannot
yield 15 anymore than 1 can yield two.
We must conclude that something cannot come
from absolutely nothing.
Also Being cannot come from non being.
A being cannot give itself what it does not have.
Let us look at the world around us. We do not
need a degree in physics to notice that there is
motion in the material universe.. What is motion
philosophically? Motion is a change in a being an
addition to that being which that being did not
have before. It is also a relation from being
somewhere in relation to another being to be in
another part of that being. For instance, I get in
the car and ride to Tampa.. In relation to the
earth, I am changing my being situated in one
part of it to being situated in another part of it.
If we don’t have a reference place to start, we
can’t observe motion. If a tennis ball were the
only matter in existence as a whole thing it could
not move, have local motion. .
Motion on this earth, for example, is gaining of
being in that there is a different relation to the
earth of the thing when the thing moves. Now
this different relation is a gaining of something
to that moving being that the being didn’t have
before. Being in a new place is having added
another aspect to the being which the being
didn’t have before. It is like adding a 1 to a 1...
The new added aspect to our being demands a
search for what is the cause of the addition.
Below: Let us treat what is not the cause of
motion or any other effect which may be
produced on a body..
The physical theory of motion (inertia), nor any
physical theory from ancient or modern science,
cannot by its nature cannot treat causes real
causes of motion. Only metaphysical principles, can do this, for the real nature of causality is a
The "objects" of physical science and
Physical theories study relations between
material objects only, be they atomic,
subatomic, or any other existing beings which
make up the material universe. The object (what
is studied) of the physical sciences are
individual, material, concrete, beings under the
aspect of their being as matter and motion.
(which would include electrons etc.) That is the
limit of the physical sciences. It can only study
causes under the aspect of material causes or
material relations in the material world. That is
their limit as a physical science.
The object of the science of metaphysics is being
as being: a being, not as material nor
immaterial, but as existing. Each existent has
the aspect of being real and is an existing thing
of a certain type. The type of a being is called
the essence. For instance: The essence of an non
rational animal8 is that it has life, sense
knowledge of some sort, be it sight, touch etc. or
perhaps just touch as a clam would have. This
animal’s essence would limit it as to what
perfections or qualities it possesses in itself as
abilities or potentialities to new activities.. The
nature of something, makes that being possess
some positive qualities which would make it do
some things, In the case of brute animals, they
search for food, eat, develop. Also the essence
possess limits on its activities, such as a dog
does not have the ability to study mathematics,
nor write a critique of a best selling novel.. There
are just so many things the nature of the dog
allows it to do, and no more. No matter how
much you expose your dog to algebra lessons,
his nature is limited so as he cannot learn it. He
lacks the ability to do so.
In the case of motion, the essence of a material
being does not contain motion. The reason for
this is that motion is a addition to the being
when it happens. If a being could move itself,
that would mean that the being would be where
it comes to be before it is there. This is
irrational. A being cannot be and not be
somewhere at the same time. A being cannot
give itself what it does not have. As we said
above zero cannot yield one. If we have zero,
then we have one, that one must have come
from somewhere else. If we have a change of a
being’s place, that would be akin to adding
something to that being that it did not have
before. We must conclude that a being cannot
really move itself.
If a being cannot move itself nor add to itself
from itself, then said being which moves needs a
mover. This mover would needs to have the
power to add something to a being which it did
not have before. We have observed many
moving beings. We have to account for the
cause of this motion in beings. It just cannot be
said that a beings seems to be moving itself, for
no mover is seen, so it must be self moving. This
is not an answer to the cause of motion, for
motion is an addition which must be accounted
for somewhere else besides in the being in
We can say that any material being which moves
needs a mover to give it the added aspect to its
being which it did not have before. We can count
causes of motion from effect backwards to first
cause of motion. There cannot be an infinite (not
finite) number of movers, for number is finite in
itself. When we count movers backwards we
always end with the first one. Of course there is
no such thing as an infinite regress of movers,
then there would be no first nor second, etc.
We must end up with a first. The first mover
must be unmoved. It must be unmoved, for if it
did move, we would have to posit another mover
to move it. It would then not be the first mover
itself. We are forced to conclude that a first
mover is not moved, but is the cause of motion
We have not in our sense experience seen,
touched, etc. an unmoved mover. It is outside of
our sense experience. We don’t sense an
unmoved mover, we argue logically to its
Just because something cannot be seen, does
not mean it does not exist, and we have proved
that there needs be an unmoved mover. So far
we have argued to the existence of being which
necessarily exists but which is outside of our
An unmoved mover must exist, and this being is
extra-sensible, that is cannot be sensed.
Have you ever noticed in the sense world a
unmoved mover? No. You can argue
necessarily to an unmoved mover, but you can't