Eliminative Determinism is a new theory of causation. It is based upon principles of parsimony and simplicity. It is a natural corollary of the theory of eliminative materialism and its challenge to folk psychology. Rather than present itself merely as an innovation or intertheoretic version of traditional determinism, it seeks to eliminate some of its basic concepts which have hitherto been considered pivotal.  Eliminative Determinism offers itself as a replacement, or at least as an alternative, to the present generally accepted school of thought,  but does not pretend to eliminate the core determinist bottom-line doctrine; that the algorithms of causal consistency in human behaviour are the inevitable result of antecedent conditions, or that the human being, in acts of apparent choice, is the ineluctable expression of his or her heredity and past environment.

If this be true, then it would seem to represent a much neglected domain of ethics and moral philosophical enquiry in a controversial  area that has potentially serious future ramifications for our attitudes towards moral turpitude and the  mechanisms of justice. Will future offenders be seen as having committed their crimes as premeditated or impulsive acts of their own free-will, or will they be pitied as the helpless victims of an infinite number of the cosmic antecedal actions of countless causal objects?

Eliminative Determinism deliberately ignores this moral conundrum, which it leaves to others to ponder upon. It concentrates specifically on the subject matter that might prompt such an ethical enquiry.

Reflective judgment can take up the slack to what is left unattended to by this new ontology. Now the confrontation twixt old and new extends into the cobwebby domain of folk ontology and the Gothic seigneury of causality and free will and the psycho-myth of 'events.'

It may be deemed useful at the outset to provide some definition of what is meant here by the terms: 'Causal Objects' or 'Causal Eventities.'

The most basic concept of Eliminative Determinism suggests that the human-centred scenario of individual 'events' is only a minuscule example of the constantly changing universe as enacted by every networked reticulation of macro and micro causal objects both historical and contemporary.

     Eliminative Determinism argues that 'that which causes' equals 'that which exists' and 'that which exists' equates to that which is holistically cosmically existentially present at any one spatio-temporal moment. The individuate parts of the cosmos cannot cause, cannot exist and cannot really be understood by humans except in their relation to the whole.

     What traditional determinism classified as: 'cause' and 'event' do not exist.  What was hitherto mistakenly represented in such abstract categories can now be said  to be synonymously instantiated in the  material acuality of  'causal objects.'

     Accordingly, it follows that for a person  to apprehend or to witness an 'event' is actually to apprehend certain causal objects existing in the way that they exist at the moment of the  human perception of them. Technically speaking; (not speaking from an anthropocentrically 'moral' point of view, no 'individual accountability' exists - every 'event' in a nexus of the chain of catenulate accountability. No 'cause' is involved - just 'normally existing causal objects,'.going through the motions jointly initiated resulting from the ever-widening, fan-like, bifurcating causal origins of today's causal objects that stretches back into the immense dark sack of time


     Such is the immensity and complexity of the cosmos; such is the universal ubiquity of modal change, and such is the homogeny between 'change' and 'cause,' and 'causal objects' all of which is governed by the existential imperative which peremptorily determines that 'to exist' is analogous 'to cause.’

     For humans to seek to anthropocentrically single out attribute individual 'cause' to any causal object is to differentiate and isolate that object as being an 'individually culpable eventity' which is somehow antithetically separated from the overall, shared, mutual or 'joint causal responsibility' or 'catenulate accountability' of all the causal objects in the cosmos, both historical and contemporaneous, that exist in accordance with scientific generalisation based on empirical observations or Laws of Nature or hypotheses confirmed by scientific experiments.

     We ascribe such abstract terms to objects in order to mask and blur our ontological incomprehension - so that we can deal with the changing modalic causal objects that surround us.' 'Change' does not exist of course - only that which changes exists. The way or manner or mode in which something exists does not in itself exist. There is no such primitive, philosophically uncouth ontological duality or juju which exists – at a ballet, only the dancing dancers populate the stage during the performance. The 'dancing' itself does not exist.

The bowing female humans in the tu-tu dresses smile, whilst fey youths thrust forward their bulges and wave when the curtain drops. But the dancing, the bowing, the bulging, the waving and the smiling do not exist. Only the pirouetting smiling, bulging pretty ones exist - the ‘dancing’ no more exists than Scotch mist.

     The advantage of the ontology of Eliminative Determinism over naive consciousness or folk causality, with its unquestioning and prejudiced intuition-based mindset, becomes obvious to anybody with an existing preference for materialism. Like its theoretical bedfellow, Eliminative Materialism, Eliminative Determinism is customised rather than intertheoretically simulated and grounded in the conventions of traditional deterministic abstraction.

     That is not to say that any new ontology just falls from the sky ready-made, but itself has its roots in the invaluable contributions of those determinists who have gone before and established the apodicticity of scientific, analytic, empirical method over the unquestioning and prejudiced naive consciousness of the free-willers I believe that the dynamical neural networks of the human brain perceive the patterns of interaction of the changing objects within the world which it finds itself and reifies the changes it observes and describes them with such useful ontological fictional vignettes as: causes, effects, superventions, events, circumstances, incidents, happenings, occurrences, occasions' etc.

       I am still engaged in knocking the raw edges off my eliminative determinist ontology which seeks to deny the existence of causative transcendentalism and fictional entities. I have been moved to eliminate the dualist compact between the mentalistic abstraction of transcendentalism, with its religious dualistic origins and associations, and the traditional, dualistic,  deterministic notions of ‘causality’ with which the old forms of determinism are unhappily burdened.

    To 'exchange' a kiss with one's lover is impossible. You kiss her and she kisses you - the notion of ontological exchange is a primitive myth. Each of the singletons experiences the combined pressure of the other's lips upon their own - but the pressure and the physiological changes to the bodies of each individual are unique and inviolate, even in the ultimate stages of love-making. Your heart-beat may increase and her cheeks may take on a rosy glow - but these physiological changes are unique to the individual. What exists are the two lovers existing in excitingly new existential modalities, which they themselves have separately initiated in response to the autonomous reorganisation of their mereological community of cells and molecules.

     And so it is the same with Hume's billiard balls - the modalic change following impact is a unique, separate, intrinsic, auto-generated, existential response-reconfiguration of the molecular, relativistic spatial positionality of each individual ball to the general laws of nature - and NOT specifically to the individual oncoming ball which impinged upon its spatial positionality.

     It matter's not if some physicist insists that the change to the speed of the oncoming ball can be calculated to be in a directly mathematical measurable relationship to changed existential modality of the stationary ball - no ‘exchange of momentum’ has taken place.

     The autopoietic entitic extantal re-organisation of the stationary ball into a moving ball is an adaptive spatial relocation in accordance with the exact nature of the laws of nature in strict conformity with the internal changes it has undergone as a part of the vast, ubiquitous, omnipresent 'catenulate systemic accountability' of the material cosmos.

      What exists are two balls extant in new existential modalities which they themselves have separately adopted in response to the autonomous reorganisation of their mereological community of molecules as engineered and brought about and enacted by those causal objects of the catenulate past which have determined their contemporaneous behavioural occurrence.

Like Eliminative Materialism, Eliminative Determinism denies the existence of 'mind' and 'consciousness,' which are characterised as vestigial hangovers from mankind's most primitive aporiatic religious past. It characterises the folk psychology which sprang from early cultism as folktales which sought to explain the way in which the self-referential human brain reifies the compendium of retrieved experiential pathways and templates we call 'memory' and re-registers and inventorially internalises it as 'mind' or 'self' or 'I.' Mentalistic dualism, or the imagined experiential self-referential 'conversations' with some inner dialogic superordinate is a presumed fact of every human's experience
- but presumptions and assumptions concerning 'facts' don't exist - only that which is factual exists. The imagined self-voyeuristic access and interrogation of the intimacies of our own brain was seized upon by early transcendentalists and formalised as an archaic hereditary explicandum for a putative spirituality. From the earliest period of our culture shamans extended the notions of spiritualised rocks, trees, wells and mountains to that of spiritualised human heads tenanted or occupied by 'souls' or 'minds.’

     This act of making lumps of animal tissue spiritual by ritualistically infusing the brain-meat with spiritual content [spiritualisation] by ancient hoodoos was in order to explain away the general ignorance surrounding the self-referencing neurological network of the human brain, which we perceive as un tête à tête de l'un avec notre propre tête. Literally - A head to head with our own head. In other words if the dualists are to be believed - we talk to our own heads - or to the meaty-bits inside our own heads to be more precise.

     Simple folk long ago were uneducated regarding the brain's constant internalisation and reflexive introjection of aspects of the world (especially aspects of persons) within itself. There was at that time no concept of the manner or process of the encephalon's constantly up-dating characterisation of the external world and how it becomes imprinted by a seemingly uninterrupted reconfiguration of the synapsal connections of the brain's neuronal net for future access.

     A analogous sort of misunderstanding can be found in the doctrines of traditional determinism today, where the spiritual attribution of 'causality' is extended to every object in the cosmos. Entities from cricket bats to surgical knives have become the assignees of attributed 'causal possession' on a scale which is redolent of 'poltergeists' which are claimed to mysteriously cause other objects to move, cut, rattle, crumble, be thrown about, collapse, be pushed and pulled and subjected to all manner of ghostly bumps in the night and other interferences and inexplicable ontological goings-on. It is the purpose of Eliminative Determinism to exorcise these fantômes dans la machine causale and to try to do for 'causality' what the marital and professorial partnership of the Churchlands have done so brilliantly for the myth of 'mind.' [1]

At this stage, by way of illustrative example, I would like to re-introduce Hume’s example of the billiard balls. It would seem obvious that causal object is not only the ball which bangs into the stationary, but is also the 'responsibility' or 'fault' of the ball that is jarred by the moving ball. It can be seen quite clearly that the impact is as much the 'fault' of the ball ahead for 'being [existing] in the way.' It can also be seen that the ball which is hit gets OUT of the way with the same amount of 'uncaring disinterestedness' that it manifested when it got IN the way - i. e., nil!

     Now I have deliberately introduced the words 'responsibility' and 'fault' here and used personification intentionally in order to save time [why have useful abstractions if one is not prepared to employ them?] for the concepts of 'blame' and 'absolvement' are a part of the muzzy logic of ‘causality’ in the human mind.

     The new determinism has no place for  abstract reifications, which it regards as intertheoretical attempts to retain the invisible threads of the non-existent abstract properties of such useful fictions as: momentum, energy, speed and mass. The traditional view is that the rate at which momentum is transferred from one object to the other equals the force between the objects. How hard they push on each other. Eliminative Determinism refutes the claim that there exists any ‘force’ called 'momentum' and insists that only a moving causal object can exist.

     It is a feature of causal objects that they automatically adjust their existential modality in accordance with the unique physical arrangement of the molecular constituents of their autopoietic organisation in relation to their contemporary physical environment . For a stationary billiard ball the impingement of another billiard ball is just another feature of that cosmic physical environment with its 'built-in imperative for change and entitic equilibrium.

     There is no valid reason why we should identity the the 'cause' of the change which takes place in the stationary ball which is hit, being attributed to the ball that hit it other than it represents a humanly perceived current link in a chain of entitic occurrences that go back into eternity. To identify the oncoming ball as the causal object responsible might make sense to a human being struggling to understand and nail-down the perceived reality of his environment, but it makes no sense ontologically from a scientifically rigorous eliminative determinist analysis. The change in the ball which is struck does not take place nor is any of it transferred to the oncoming ball [which changes its own existential modality] but is a self-generated autopoietic reaction and reorganisation of its own plasticity in accordance with the laws of nature.



     More importantly the collision of the two balls takes place for such an historically uncountable number of reasons that it makes no sense scientifically [though it does in the context of mans experience and cognitive mapping of such direct observational participation.

     The notion of such a metaphysical ‘force’ or movement' existing is seen to be a reification of a putative non-existential action which in some way is thought of as being dualistically or descriptionally 'separate' from the causal object itself. Moving causal objects do not 'have' a 'speed' or 'momentum' - they are slowly moving or speeding entities. What exists is not the abstractions 'speed' or 'momentum' but human beings existing in neurophysiological modalities of attributing such non-existent abstract qualities to the objects they observe phenomenologically. Phenomena are states or processes known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning, and if reasoning were to be applied in the case of a moving object such as a billiard-ball, it would become apparent that it was not the state of moving which exists - but the physical billiard ball.

     Every object in the cosmos exists as changing dynamical causal object. Objects HAVE to exist this way - otherwise they would not exist in the first place.

     What then exists on the billiard or snooker table are collections of ergodic causal objects with which the contestants seek to occupy and reoccupy the spatial positions occupied by other balls, each succeeding another either directly or randomly indirectly involving transient existential modes. The salient existential characteristics of the individual balls is that they are essentially similar to other members of the set and undergo intrinsic physical change in analogous modes which are anticipated by the players.

     What then 'causes' one ball to hit another? For the eliminative determinist it is not the classical deterministic catenulate chain of causal events which bifurcate back endlessly into the past. Nor is it the product of causal sequences which proliferate like eventive fractals, as seen as it were, from the rear-view mirror of a time machine as it zooms from the past to the present.

The eliminative determinist points to the fact that what exists in the cosmos now has always existed, though in uncountable different forms and versions, for that which is material can never be totally eliminated. If the cosmos had NOT always existed, and had it really been the product of a lone creatio ex nihilo formative event which had brought it 'into being,' then the so-called 'first cause' could never have eventuated, because scientific Eliminative Determinism admits of no first cause. Why do I make this claim? Because if the determinist paradigm is correct, there can be no exceptions to the physical paradigms of causal objects; the event of the 'first cause' must itself have had some primary moving causal object too. If God created the cosmos - then he must have had a God that created him too; and a concatenation of supreme beings must have stretched backwards into eternity.

     If one causal object is almost identical to another, they belong to an ergodic ensemble. In an ergodic population such as we find on the billiard table, any singleton is typical of the entire group. The conspicuous physical characteristics of one individual may be essentially almost identical with any other member of the group. I say 'almost' because absolute sameness is physically impossible - every causal object in the universe differs from every other - for if one object were to be absolutely the same as another - it would BE that other. The production of biological causal objects is allopoietic, because the offsprings of all causal objects are materially distinct from the parent causal objects and occupy different temporally spatial positions. The reproduction of causal objects is not self-production.

Now let us examine 'Energy' to try to establish if it too actually exists? How Is Energy Stored? Some devices that store different forms of energy are listed below.

The above sounds quite medieval does it not? Replace the word quantity' with the word 'property' and it is as if we have been transported back to the days of medieval scholasticism. Where do we find this mysterious energy that lurks in every object?

     If we were to look inside the human body to find the place where energy is located where would we look? Is it stored in the same location as 'mind' perhaps? The claim appears to be that energy is some mysterious quantity - so let us proceed to define exactly what is a 'fundamental quantity,' and where it is to be found in the human body?

'In the language of measurement, quantities are quantifiable aspects of the world, such as time, distance, velocity, mass, and weight, and units measure them. Quantities are sometimes also referred to as dimensions although the term is only strictly true of time and space measurements; see dimensional analysis . [5]

     So let us recapitulate. We are told that 'momentum' is 'movement' and 'movement' is 'energy and 'energy ' is a 'quantity' and a quantity' is quantifiable aspects of the world, such as time, distance, velocity, mass, and weight. But this does not answer the question as the WHERE this 'energy' is to be found. What can guess what the answer to this question will be from the men in white coats - 'In the object!' Why on earth do they not simply admit that 'energy' IS the heavy hanging lump of metal - the wound metal spring - the battery - the capacitor and the plastic water tank object which ARE the energetic or ''Causal objects' that the ontological taboo forbids them to identify?

     It is beginning to feel a little like that with this quest to find the whereabouts of kinetic energy isn't it? We are told that muscular activity accounts for most of the body's energy consumption. Muscles store energy for their own use in the form of glycogen, which represents about 1% of their mass. This can be rapidly converted to glucose when more energy is necessary. Are we not entitled to wonder at this stage if these abstractions are no more than moonshine, and that what ACTUALLY exists is the moving billiard ball, the distant mountain, the heavy or weighty anvil and the glucose/glycogen that presumably could be extracted from the human musculature - placed in a bottle and re-labelled with its correct name 'ENERGY.'

   Do we not find ourselves in the position of the little boy in the crowd when the naked emperor rode by? Do we now not suddenly realise that the abstractions we play with are no more than anthropocentric, ontological fairy-tales that we humans tell ourselves and each other, because we are unwilling to face the fact that souls, spirits, causes, distance, weight, speed, movement, heat, mind and the invisible clothes of the naked ontological emperor are figments of our imagination and although it is very counter-intuitive to admit - THEY DO NOT EXIST!

 Well up to now this has no doubt all been good fun, for as David Hume remarked:

'No conclusions can be more agreeable to scepticism than such as make discoveries concerning the weakness and narrow limits of human reason and capacity.' [7]

What we need to remember is that though the ontological will-o'-the-wisps we have identified do not by any stretch of the imagination exist and are fictions - they are 'useful' if not vitally important fictions, for if we had not invented them we would find it difficult to speak of the nature of the brain or provide some cogent account of what happens when two billiard balls bump into each other. How difficult would it be to talk scientifically in the absence of abstraction? Well, we will leave that to a future paper.

     We are told that when Hume's famous billiard balls strike each other they 'exchange momentum' and demonstrate 'changed states of motion' after the impact. This is a misunderstanding. No 'exchange of momentum' takes place for 'momentum' does not exist to be exchanged or retained in this folkloric vignette.

     What exists in the real world of Eliminative Determinism are the entitively changing moving balls. No differentiative 'exchange' has taken place - the balls have changed or generated their own existential modalities - they have not received any of the 'properties' of the other balls, because the 'properties' do not exist to be retained, transferred or received, and are nothing more than a construct contrived by humans - an excogitation whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished by their form or behaviour from others in the eyes of humans. But the forms or the behaviour of the billiard balls do not exist, what exists are the billiard balls and the attributional humans. The humans exist in existential modalities of assigning homocentric notions of form and behaviour to the balls. The billiard balls exist in the everchanging modalities of causal objects - oblivious to the 'fact' that they are used for billiards - or even that they are balls.

     David Hume (an avid billiards player) commented that what we see is a 'sequence of events' not any actual 'push' or 'force.'

     Hume's perspective highlights his genius as he strives to bring about an ultimate correctability of our most deep-seated convictions about the nature of the way we perceive cause and effect.

      However Hume's analysis and contribution is not one of a new theory of causality but an intertheoretic modification of the old model which retains the unnecessary and cumbersome paraphernalia of abstraction. Though David Hume is my hero I reject his idea that we see a 'series of events' when we observe the striking balls.

    In real life we do not see the actual push as the two balls collide -we think we see the two objects touch, but although we think we see a collision or an impact what we really see is two touching, colliding or impacting billiard balls. Touch, collision, impaction do not exist - action does not exist and cannot be found anywhere in the cosmos - only acting or causing causal objects objects exist.

   There is a view held within folk psychology that there exists a classifiable mental property that is not reducible to anything physical. This mental dimension hosts a separate mental ‘substance’ called a non-physical ‘mind’ or ‘soul.’ There is also a view held within the philosophy of causality and ‘free will’ that objects such as billiard balls host a separate ontological ‘property' or ‘potential’ - a non-physical abstraction known as - ‘causation’.

     ‘Change' does not exist - only that which changes exists. 'Cause' or ‘causality’ does not exist - only that which causes exists. 'Effect' does not exist - only that which is affected exists. 'Collision' does not exist - only that which collides exists.

     This reification of of causal eventities into reificational events is nothing new and indeed, in the day to day world of ordinary life non-physical 'events' can be described and talked about as if they actually existed rather than the causal objects themselves.

    Thus 'The Garden Party at Saint Peter's Church' is referred to as if it really existed, when in fact what existed was the material causal structure called Saint Peter's, the greensward that surrounds it complete with beds of flowers, the hired marquees, the trestle tables, the glasses, bottles, plates and spoons and all the other manner of causal paraphernalia considered necessary in order that the 'event' could qualify for the reified designatum 'Garden Party,' not forgetting the causal objects known as the priest and the attendees of course.

Some traditionalists might point out that their unquestioning faith in abstractional causation is not a defect but precisely its strength, and that because faith is trusting and constant, such beliefs have served mankind well for thousangs of years. New scientific ontological categories that have emerged are themselves derivative of the more originary and more phenomenologically adequate categories that have served mankind for millennia. Eliminative Determinism is the first antitheoretical rather than intertheoretical doctrine which bucks that historical trend.

     'States' do not exist - they are anthropocentric attributions and fairytales we use to describe that which we do not understand. States can express the existence of a state of stillness or one of action and neither stillness nor action exist. Only causal objects that we perceive of as being 'still' or 'active' exist. 'Being' and 'existence' do not exist - only that which is what it is, and that which exists in the way that it exists, exists.

     In human interaction the modal or causal shift into a passive or objective existential configuration as expressed in language bestows subjective torpidly, submissive fecklessness upon person's existential modality. Languages have equipped themselves to accommodate many glaring existential human conflicts. In formal writing. For the author 'passivity' is condemned in the interests of 'forceful writing and objectivity, ' but the reason for this instinctive distaste is little understood.

     Some feminists see it as a manifestation of a desire for male domination.
'Josephine was beaten by the policeman" and: 'The policeman beat Josephine"

The implications of toggling the linguistic modal switch are suddenly thrown into clear focus, for the modal switch transfers the narrative and experiential point of view from Josephine to that of the policeman. In other words from the point of view of an emphatic 'masculine' narrative. The story is then carried along by the unfolding of fresh energetic and 'vigorously expatiated' events. The passivity often shown by the more sensitive male and female writers and poets is often condemned as 'passive,' and as demonstrating inactiveness, inertia and submissiveness, and as concentrating too much on the 'feelings' of the main protagonist or hero and heroines of the story, rather than in 'the job at hand.'


‘The modal switch’ [we will call it a ‘causal switch’ also takes place when we describe in natural language in a certain skewed way an ‘event’ we encounter in our normal lives.

                                                Consider the Following

An old lady wearing a hearing-aid is just moving her trolley from the aisle to the checkout in Walmart when a young man rushes up and knocks her and her trolley over bruising the woman's arm rather badly at the same time.
He continues running towards the exit and disapears from sight. Later, when, helped by one of the store assistants, the woman has recovered and is nursing her arm. The young man returns.

'You idiot!' she screams...'you caused this,' she shows him a large purple bruise on her arm...'and you have smashed all my eggs and three bottles of bourbon!"

‘It was YOUR fault you deaf old fool,' replies the panting man, 'I shouted for people to get out of the way - I saw a parked station-wagon in the car-park was on fire and I was rushing out to help. I am an off-duty fireman.’

   What caused the broken eggs and bottles and bruising to the woman's arm?

Humans attribute anthropocentric notions of: 'blame, cause, fault, initiation, responsibility’ to inanimate objects where none exists. There is no 'causality' in the cosmos. To cause or to change is to exist. All objects are causing, changing, existing objects. No causal object = no existing object. No changing object = no existing object.

   Just how far down the ladder of causal objectivity we can clamber into the quantum world of causal eventities below remains to be discovered by our scientists, but however many newly discovered ontological levels we microscopically plunge, it will make no difference at all to the eliminative determinist vision.

   From the countless grains of sugar that dissolve ten times a day amongst the tea-leaves of the British, to the discarded hairs of my body that float down and make landfall on my bedroom carpet. From the millions of tons of molten nastiness that is spewed out by the sun every few seconds, to the causal rubbings and chafings of trillions of tree-leaves and insect legs that grace the forests of our world - causal objectivity is total, universal and ubiquitous in every corner of the cosmos. Why do we human billiard players, tucked away in a small room, on a small planet, in a small universe, dependent on a small star single out the ‘collision’ of some tiny specks of matter tiny speck of matter which we call the ‘billiard balls’ set upon on the green baize before us as causal singularities, when the whole of the cosmos is a moiling mass of unconcerned interaction and change?

     The answer is of course that we humans DO have our human centred concerns, and the concerns of the billiard players centre upon the causal process by which they believe they are responsible for causing the balls to move, collide, and drop into the appropriate pockets of the billiard table. The fact that when they cue the ball they are merely ephemeral, agential causal objects occupying some minor, medial position in vast, reticular deterministic system of biramous catenulate chains of cosmic determination doesn’t occur to them – and to be honest – why should it? The fact that THEY think they are responsible for winning the frames and winning the pint of beer or the silver cup is good enough for them and good enough for most folks. For the scientist however things appear differently. We may wonder why it is that most people find it difficult to understand that 'causality' does not exist?

   Perhaps as T. S. Eliot said: ‘Humankind cannot stand very much reality.’ [9] Eliot 1935 p. 172

     For some it may be beyond what they can bear to accept the harsh reality that: ‘that which exists’ is the totality of the physical cosmos and it exists in a causally uncaring, imperative modality, which works itself out through the medium of a concatenation of causal objects - in a way that is completely disinterested, totally oblivious, incognisant and unaware of our lilliputian human concerns and petty attempts to attribute meaning to or causal responsibility to the catenulate phenomena we briefly experience in our short existence?

REFERENCES:

[1] Churchland. Patricia. Neurophilosophy, 2000. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[2] www. mountainmanagement. biz/glossary. Htm
[3] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Energy
[4] Mellendorf. Ken. Physics Instructor. Illinois Central College. Aug 22, 2002
[5] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fundamental_quantity
[6] Dudinstev. Vladimir. 'Not by Bread Alone.' Hutchinson London 1957. See: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/florry038.htm for plot details.
[7][Hume. David. 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Section 7, part 2. 3]
[8] Sansom. Richard. 'Elemental Predomination.' 2006. Yahoo A. I. T. discussion list.http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gary_cosmos.htm
[9] Eliot. T. S. ‘Burnt Norton’ Four Quartets. 1969. P. 172. Faber & Faber, London