Philosophy Class

"The Truth will make you odd."

                  You Can't Get One Out of Zero.

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

absolutely impossible.


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.


Dead Duck



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,

leaving zero.


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

from nothing. 


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

metaphysical problem.


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

in everything.


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

sense experience.


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

sense one.