A being is that which exists; Being is existence.

Experience is subjective awareness. In greater detail—

Experience is subjective awareness or consciousness in pure, attitudinal, and agent forms; experience is the place of meaning and significance, and of knowledge

The hypothetical being that affects no experience is (effectively) non-existent.

The universe is all Being.

The void is the absence of Being.

The void exists—

Since, for the void, existence and non-existence are equivalent (if one objects to existence in fact, then note that there is no inconsistency in taking the void to exist, and—for reasons that will become clear—existence may be regarded as a universal law or existential action principle / attitude / hypothesis)

A (natural) law is a (reading) of a pattern (typically abstract); the laws have Being (; given some facts regarded as simple, a compound fact is just their joint factuality; and a pattern is just a compound fact for which the number of simple facts required to specify it is less than the actual number of simple facts; of course we may allow the special case of where the two numbers are equal).

The universe is the realization of all possibility (for if a possible state does not emerge from the void, that would be a law of the void).

What kind of possibility? It must be the greatest (in potential if there is no actual greatest) for if not the greatest then some possibility is ruled out and thus a law. But consider—"it is possible that the impossible is possible": does not that make 'possibility' contradictory? No, for the phrase in double quotes is an obvious misuse of language—of the term 'possibility'. So even though not necessary, let us make consistency transparent by substituting 'greatest consistent possibility' for 'greatest possibility'. But what is the greatest possibility? It is a valid question for 'greatest consistent possibility' is a phrase without any clear meaning—i.e., it is not clear how the 'greatest...' is to be evaluated. Let us show that the 'greatest consistent possibility' is logical possibility: it must be for logical possibility is consistent possibility but a non-logical possibility is not realized in any context or world—from the conception of logic (it does not follow that our extant systems of truth functional logics—of just truth or necessary truth—are all that there is). There are other kinds of possibility that may be called 'real' which all presume logical possibility, at least tacitly. Some examples of real possibility are universal, natural (physical, biological, agent), and social (GIVE EXAMPLES).

We have in effect proved what we will call the fundamental principle of metaphysics (or just fundamental principle)—the universe is the realization of logical possibility (and thus an equivalent statement is that universal possibility and logical possibility the same or, more precisely, identical in what they specify though not or at least seemingly not identical in concept). Of course there will be doubts and objections but let us first state some consequences of the principle.

Consequences—the universe has identity; the universe and its identity are limitless in variety and extension (extension is sameness-and-difference-of-Being-and-absence-thereof which are precursors to space-time-Being); and limitless variety and magnitude of peaks of Being and dissolution; individuals merge with one another in these—Brahmanic—peaks; thus death is real but not absolute—it is window on the ultimate and reminder of the preciousness of 'this life' and to use it toward the ultimate; the way to the ultimate is ever fresh, enjoyable, and ecstatic; but there is also pain, ennui, suffering, and impediment which are not to be avoided and which are at times unavoidable—yet they are best dealt with, where possible, by working with and at the same time through them; and there are effective paths which follow intelligence and diligence and which are ecstatic and enjoyed but never free from potential pain. Aside on space-time: Identity is defined by a sense of sameness; time is progression of Identity along difference (change; note this invokes properties) and space is progression along difference of Identity without time progression.

Doubts (1) internal consistency—given by invoking logic, (2) but if we have doubts about logic is that not circular—no for it is in effect a definition of logic which now needs discovery and verification-as-best-, we-can, (3) consistency with fact, which includes experience of the world and science—but this is guaranteed for it is logically inconsistent to be in negation of the facts, (4) but then, it would seem that since the facts are the facts, the principle says nothing—but that is not the case for our cosmos, our world may be causally and deterministically disconnected from the rest of the universe (and from the fundamental principle there must be a limitless region of disconnect), (5) but then, taking a block view of the universe is it not necessarily deterministic and are not again the facts the facts—yes, that is true from the perspective of the block but not from a limited more or less causally isolated cosmos, (6) but if the being that affects no being does not exist how can there be causal isolation—the isolation is temporary or otherwise partial, (7) but does that not mean that whether the universe is deterministic depends on perspective—yes it does, (8) but what kind of determinism is that—it is the kind in which a part defined in any way determines a whole of which temporal determinism is a special case, (9) but is not the magnitude of the consequences just too much to admit—no for there is consistency, there is proof, there is the approach of universal law or hypothesis and existential attitude or principle, and there are heuristics—e.g. (a) the fundamental principle as the limit of all scientific theory (logic must be the boundary of science) and (b)let us assume there is an explanation of the Being of the universe, then it cannot be another being for there is no other; perhaps then it is possibility—this is tentatively good for obviously the universe is possible—but this is not an explanation for it allows the alternative which is non existence; it must therefore be that particular case of possibility that is necessity; but now if our cosmos is the universe and its existence is necessary then, since necessity assumes no beings, by symmetry all logical possibility must obtain; and of course this is a heuristic but it does show that, in light of the fundamental principle, it is valid to regard necessity as the—non-classical—cause of the universe; which also makes it clear that the fundamental principle resolves what Heidegger called the fundamental question of metaphysics—why there is something rather than nothing, and (10) How is the claimed proof a proof? I.e. how is it certain?

So, how was the proof of the fundamental principle possible? The abstraction that went into the concepts of 'Being', 'universe', and 'void', made knowledge of them perfect in a correspondence sense. Note that this is not an abstraction of remoteness but rather one in which concrete detail that can be subject to distortion or projection is eliminated (this, by the way, shows that the distinction between abstract and concrete objects is not one of kind, that the abstract and concrete lie on a continuum, that the concrete is only concrete relative to 'our Being', but of course, our approach to study needs to be different because we are at a limited range of the continuum—it is empirical for our range of the concrete but symbolic beyond where it can be perfect if the object is sufficiently abstract but otherwise may be pragmatic and 'hypothetico-deductive'. Still there is a problem of how we in the concrete can connect to the abstract.

We do this as follows. While the fundamental principle reveals an ultimate, perfectly known, but concretely disconnected real, our concrete received knowledge from the history of culture, where valid, can fill in the gaps. But does that not introduce imprecision? Yes, but it is not problematic in the following way. The abstract ideal shows that we most probably cannot and most certainly do not need perfect concrete knowledge—that the concrete is a pragmatic instrument in moving from being to being, cosmos to cosmos. And now, we have dual metaphysics with dual epistemology—the duality being perfect-pragmatic—the perfect illuminates and guides the pragmatic and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the perfect. Does this negate traditional metaphysics and epistemology? No, but it gives them context and limited but definite significance. Does this not destroy the search for purity in knowledge and its methods? Yes, but it also destroys any absolute claim that purism can have on our search (it may be seen that purism, a common human tendency because it provides simple and clean answers, in fact inhibits proper outcomes—WHAT ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES?)

But now another doubt. (11) How do we move from being to being, cosmos to cosmos? How does that begin to make sense? Response—the in principle answer comes from the fundamental principle as seen earlier: universal identity is limitless and we merge in it. But now a question and doubt. (12) How does that happen? The answer lies in the block view of the universe. To see how, let us fill out that view, noting first that it is not a quantum-vacuum view but prior to and deeper than the quantum vacuum. The answer is that the merging occurs in the intersection of lines and tubes in the block.

Yet another doubt arises. (12) How can we understand how stable cosmological and living forms (biological, psychological, and thought) arise? The answer comes from the pragmatic side. It is the variation and selection or self-adaptation of evolution. It also explains the probable numerical preponderance of such forms. It applies to cosmoses, life, and creative thought. But it does not require either (a) that all origins are incremental or (b) that bizarre forms do not arise; it suggests that they are less stable, less likely, and less significant (for 'less' we may read 'far less').

What are some bizarre forms? (a) The Abrahamic and many other mythic cosmologies (b) solipsism in which the world is generated as if the content of the mind of a limited individual (c) Russell's teapot and his other idea that the world might have been created five minutes ago, complete with memories and geological record.

One more doubt. (13) But surely these bizarre worlds or contexts are not real? After all even our philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, endeavors to show them unreal and/or impossible. The resolution is that they are real but as noted above far less stable in some aspect and far less likely and significant on-the-whole. And now another doubt. (14) But is it certain that they are far less likely? No, it is not certain. But here pragmatism indicates that we shelve such cosmologies as literal until and if they come into our experience—for there is not just one bizarre religious cosmology (it is not said that all are bizarre) but an infinity of such cosmologies. And, further, to take them literally is destructive of what real symbolic, metaphorical, and allegorical significance they may have.

Still more doubt (15) But this 'perfect metaphysics' is not new. Its picture is similar to that of the Atman-Brahman of Vedanta (yes it is, and Vedanta is one of my sources). Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger and others talk of the fundamental character of Being (all true and I am indebted to them but note that their versions were deficient in lacking proof and not being sufficiently neutral in fact). Philosophers from Euripedes to Kant and since (catalogued by E.O. Lovejoy's "The Great Chain of Being") have written on the 'principle of plenitude'—which Kant interpreted as "In infinite time all possibilities occur" (deficient in lacking proof, in not showing that there is infinite time, in not being clear about the meaning of possibility). Response—the present work synthesizes all that, proves it, and goes far beyond t.

The Way of Being—above the imperative to be on the way to the ultimate was shown. Effective paths flow from the perfect metaphysics, a mix of the new vision and pragmatic knowledge which contains science, technology, art, and allegorical religion on the instrumental side and yoga (inclusive of psychology) on the intrinsic side.

Templates for the paths may be given—everyday, ritual, and universal.