My Worldview and modern views

Anil Mitra, © February, 28 2010
Revised ©
March 4, 2013

Home | Contact


Preface. 1

Secular metaphysics—a default modern view.. 1

Fundamentalism.. 2

My views—a brief history. 3

A Universal metaphysics. 6

What does this metaphysics entail?. 7

Proof 9

No violation of science. 9

Plans for the future. 10

Why Journey in being?. 10

Assessment 11



Here is the briefest assertion that enables the generation of my view—The Void exists (demonstration in section ‘Proof.’) What this means—the nature and meaning of Void and of existence—and entails for the nature of being and of the Universe is immense but not at all apparent in the bare statement. Two equivalents of this assertion are (1) Subject to Logic every concept has reference and (2) There is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being in the Universe. These assertions have some suggestive content but still remain intensely skeletal. And if the reader has some sense of the significance, he or she will have questions about the validity of the assertions in relation to common sense, to his or her experience and modern science

For others to understand and appreciate my view which is based in the Universal metaphysics that I have developed, it will not be sufficient to merely state the principle—it will be necessary provide preparation by presenting a range of standard viewpoints (from Secular metaphysics to religious  Fundamentalism,) the evolution of my view—how I arrived at it (My views—a brief history,) to elaborate it sufficiently and show what it entails (A Universal metaphysics and What does this metaphysics entail?,) and to provide Proof. And since it may appear to violate science and ‘common sense,’ it will be necessary to defuse apparent paradoxes. It will be useful to show that the metaphysics at the root of my view is not inconsistent with modern science. In fact, the Universal metaphysics requires what is true in science (No violation of science)

It will also be useful to provide some explanation of the title, Journey in being that I employ as a title of my longer narratives—at the Journey in being Website—i.e., what is the journey and what is the place of the extended development of a metaphysics in the journey, and to provide some Assessment of my worldview

The following treatment is highly selective in detail, proof, foundation, criticism and response

Secular metaphysics—a default modern view

A common sense world view grounded in modern science, especially physical science for the constitution of being including that of life; physical cosmology for the origin and extent of the universe; chemistry for the origin of organic molecules and the chemical basis of life; botany and zoology for the description of life and organisms; geology and many other sciences for evidence of evolution; and evolutionary theory for an understanding of the forms of life—adaptation, physical and mental abilities from the basic to the sublime… and the origins and variety of life—the kinds, especially the species including human being

Values centered in human being and, for some, other forms of life—plants and animals, the environment, and ‘Gaia;’ in ‘secular humanism’ the goal is a meaningful life (identity,) a productive life (community,) in harmony with and respect for the world (environment, other life forms.) The ‘spiritual’ is not regarded as trivial but is interpreted in terms of meaning—e.g. ritual as invoking peaceful and other desirable states of mind, the stories of the scriptures as examples of ways of living and metaphors for a psychology of depth

There is a tendency to disregard literal interpretations of the scriptures and to regard their appeal as the result of addressing psychological ‘needs’

Therefore the modern secular humanist tends to the continuum between atheism and agnosticism

Such a view is a modern default in being a widespread and natural result of a modern education and the modern way of life provided the individual receives no early indoctrination in religious ideology. For the modern, educated, liberal man or woman in the West, especially in Western Europe, it is perhaps the default. Although many people arrive at a view that is roughly this default after reflection, is not untypical for the secular humanist to hold his or her views without significant attachment or reflection (and without using the term ‘secular humanism’) for the view is rather non-ideological but is perhaps part of what it is to be modern


Although I call secular humanism a default view, I do not imply that most people hold it. Perhaps the number of people who hold it is less than the numbers who adhere to some system of religious belief that contradicts ‘secular metaphysics.’ Some people who hold the secular metaphysics based in science turn to religion for beauty and moral truth and may regard its stories as metaphors for the human condition. There have been attempts to reconcile secular thought with literal interpretations of the faiths but these are not widely regarded as successful

As long as the adherents of religion have been truthful, they have had to retreat in the face of advancing science. Today, the conservatives and fundamentalists have taken a new tack. They are willing to assert that which they do not know to be true according to principles that they must use in their everyday lives. They argue falsely, though perhaps they are not fully aware of its falsity, of the truth of ‘creation science.’ The argument is a façade for fundamentalism, merely reactionary attitudes, refusal to reflect, and raw expression of power… this has become the political equation of the day which, I think, threatens the foundations of Western democracy including the freedoms that the conservatives and fundamentalists enjoy. The human mind becomes a vast desert

It is argued that there are some realms in which evidence and reason do not apply. If that is the case then there can be no reason to suppose what the fundamentalists hold

In truth, though, there are many realms in which evidence and reason may apply but are not so important, e.g. in love. What are we to do with the region outside the bright light of science? Reason and evidence do not reveal that there is no such region—or that there is and what its size may be; this will be shown in the section The ‘logic’ of science, below. As far as science is concerned that region may be infinite and filled with infinitely greater variety than is revealed in science and described in all of humankind’s myths. The history of science suggests rather strongly that more is to be revealed. Perhaps the greatest disservice done by fundamentalism is to insist on a false picture of what is ‘outside’ and therefore stop any search and encourage, by reaction in others, to fundamentalism as the single alternate, adherence to the strict picture from current science. In relation to what has come before—Logic, science, evidence, reason, and faith—it seems that the most faithful attitude toward what is there (outside what is positively known) is agnosticism which allows that what is there lies in the range from zero to infinity (in variety and extent)

Should we consider fundamentalism to be a family—Islam, Christianity and so on—of modern default views? Focusing, as an example, on Christianity, the various species are regarded to have been created at the same time about 6000 years ago, each in perfect adaptation to its environment, and therefore not evolving (or ‘needing’ to evolve.) It has been said that this view was perfectly logical based on the available data at the time that the view was articulated. However, it is contradicted by the current available evidence. To believe in the Bible as a literal account, therefore, requires an act of faith in contra-founded positions. Therefore, I do not regard the varieties of fundamentalism as default positions

The range of modern views

Should we consider fundamentalism (Islamic, Christian and so on) to be a family of default modern views? Focusing, as an example, on Christian fundamentalism, the various species are regarded to have been created at the same time about 6000 years ago, each in perfect adaptation to its environment, and therefore not evolving (or ‘needing’ to evolve.) It has been said that this view was perfectly logical based on the available data at the time that the view was articulated. Today, however, this creationist view is contradicted by the current available evidence as well as by our most reasonable inferences from the evidence. To believe in the Bible as a literal account, therefore, requires an act of faith in contra-founded positions… many other examples of faith over common evidence could be given for fundamentalism in Christianity and other religions could be given but this would be repetition what is commonly understood and agreed upon (outside fundamentalism.) Therefore, I do not regard the varieties of fundamentalism as default positions

My views—a brief history

As a child there was no serious exposure to ideology. My father proclaimed atheism, my mother held weakly to some weak form of Christianity; neither parent was dogmatic in matters of faith. My mother had an interest in and inclination toward art but our home environment was markedly devoid of the ‘spiritual.’ There was moral science of a Christian version in school but I do not remember any pressure to take the subject seriously; the subject was dry and didactic and devoid of spiritual or symbolic content (which may have been the intention)

I grew up without a belief in a religious metaphysics. As a child I did not have a religious cosmology; for me the world was the immediate world, a world dominated more by feeling than by intellect—there was fear of punishment for wrongdoings but the fear was not sufficient to avoid wrongdoings which were a source of joy; mostly, the world was there to be enjoyed. That was perhaps the extent of my early contribution to metaphysics

The effect of exposure to religion was, therefore, emotional. I experienced the world as a place of wonder and religion spoke to me when it revealed and emphasized wonder. It was a private, unspoken relationship. I found certain aspects of religion, especially the parables of the bible to have great power and beauty but I was unmoved by claims regarding miracles and the supernatural. Perhaps, though, I absorbed the idea that what is in the world is an important concern—this is one explanation of my interest but not the most satisfactory one and my preferred explanation lies in the combination of emotion and cognition that later manifested as a passion for ideas and understanding at all levels from the particular to the general

There was science in high school but that science presented no explicit picture of the Universe; it did however, by emphasis, suggest that the world is a material world. In college I was exposed via coursework and personal reading, to the great theories of science and related philosophies that argued for a material universe and a modern cosmology (big-bang plus)

At the beginning of this exposure I may have been an overt materialist but the emotional side of my being did not permit me to take materialism too seriously. Careful study reveals that the scientific picture of the universe does not necessarily follow from the data even though ‘current’ science may be the best picture so far—this case is built later. In the absence of real competition—religious-mythic cosmologies do not count—science provides the only received picture based in evidence and reason. In earlier times unbelievers were tortured; today’s fundamentalist will bore us to death

My worldview from the time of my first exposure to science, until the indefinite time that marks the emergence of the Universal metaphysics, may be described as the scientific world view with reservations (my present view does not contradict the scientific cosmology but limits its domain of validity.) I was quite happy in the thought that although I had some perspective, my picture was not guaranteed to be complete

My first explicitly developed metaphysics, in Evolution and Design, was a roughly material picture of the Universe whose constituents are formed in process. The primary process that I used to explain the forms of the Universe was the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm of gradual variation and selection. This process has the virtue of being able to explain both structure and novelty from simple origins. The Christian fundamentalist might object to this and assert that ‘chance’ cannot explain the grand design that we see and that the true explanation is that the Universe was made by God. I shall not address this objection in this essay except to observe that ‘creationism’ is no explanation at all—if an explanation is something that is understood. As explanation of the complex and not-understood in terms of the relatively simple and understood, creationism explains nothing. The fundamentalist has no reason to prefer Christian Creationism to the stories of the Hindu Veda or the Bushman of the Kalahari. However, we should not insist that even the latest structuring of Darwin’s theories explain everything (biological)

All the while working on Evolution and Design, I wrote as if I was a materialist but doubt continued. Science shows what is in the Universe (here I have agreement with the scientific picture) but not what is not in it (here I disagree with those who say there is nothing outside science—there is no reason in science to think so.) Effectively, I remained a materialist because I had no positive knowledge of ‘something more’ and I did not know that what was not clearly material, e.g. human psyche and spirit, was not in fact material or manifestation of the material. Certainly, there are practical reasons to assume the scientific picture; but the concern is not only what is practical but what is true… (one of the reasons to pursue science and truth in general is that the related practical value is not always immediate but when realized is significant)

After Evolution and Design, I began to feel the need to seek another perspective because (1) Satisfying as it was, the evolutionary / material perspective was neither given nor revealed as complete and (2) I had the intuition that somehow getting ‘beyond’ or ‘behind’ might take understanding to a deeper level, assume less and, via abstraction, have the potential to be more complete (however I did not anticipate that I would finally arrive at a picture that is complete in the senses described below.) I toyed with various kinds of idealism and absolutism and though I abandoned these points of view what I learned has been useful. I studied and wrote in philosophy of mind and consciousness (which though peripheral to my interest became immensely useful later.) Finally, it appeared to me that what I sought was an explanation that would be (1) Beyond time (an explanation that is ‘beyond time’ does not require that time be ‘imaginary,’) and (2) Uncommitted, at least at outset, to the constituents of being (matter and so on.) Around 1997, I began to toy with the idea that the equivalence of the Void (absence of being) and the Universe would provide the kind of explanation that I sought. In 1999, I had a powerful intuition of this equivalence. However, intuition is neither explanation nor proof but may speak to some understanding or perhaps hope at a less than fully conscious level. I sought from various points of view to show that the Universe is equivalent to the Void. Then in 2002, I had the insight to examine the concept of the Void and its properties as the absence not only of things but also of Laws (which insight may have been encouraged in part to focus on ‘being’ rather than on substance such as mind, matter and so on.) This was the crucial insight that enabled the rigorous development of the Universal metaphysics

In the section on Fundamentalism, I wrote that in absence of positive knowledge, the most honest attitude to ‘beyond science’ is agnosticism. There is truth to that. However, some are bound to interpret that as a rule to not even reflect on or think about what may lie beyond science (of today.) A role of imagination is to imagine and then see whether what has been imagined may exist. This is a value to the religious and other literary cosmologies (along the way, though, what is a good story often becomes dogma)

Via experiments in ideas, I came across the Universal metaphysics that I have been able to demonstrate and develop. The process was not one of pure imagination but of small experiments in ideas across a spectrum of fields that advanced incrementally and semi-intuitively with ‘reason’ serving partly as censor… It was this interaction of imagination, suggestion from various fields including science, and criticism that was the occasion for the emergence of the Universal metaphysics. Once emerged it was necessary for the system to pass all tests of rigor

The view of the Universal metaphysics is not that science is ‘wrong’ but that the domain of validity of current science is limited. Some aspects of what is new about the Universal metaphysics are that (1) It is demonstrated and (2) What is demonstrated includes variety, duration, and extension that extends infinitely beyond our modern world picture. What is taken up in the subsequent sections includes demonstration, elaboration, raising and responding to doubts and criticisms

My present view is therefore that the local world is rather that of secular humanism; that it is in the nature of the case that our experience of the world shall be rather like that of secular humanism; that, as it shall turn out, it shall not be ‘easy’ to transcend this ‘world’ (science itself provides a history of transcendence;) but it is worthwhile and not at all impossible to explore such transcendence (which is not a metaphysical or mystical but a very real transcendence)

We may be disposed to think that for practical purposes the world is rather like that of secular humanism. That would be mistaken because (1) Exploration is a practical human endeavor and (2) Knowledge of the entire Universe may change attitudes to being-in-the-world and especially what is practical


After Evolution and Design, I began to seek an alternative framework that would found the evolutionary foundation. It seemed to me that if I could come up with a non-temporal framework, the result might be more satisfactory because it would explain time (and space and their nature) rather than presume them. Along the way I had the intuition that the equivalence of the Void and the Universe might be the foundation of such a framework. This intuition was strengthened by the fact that the creation of a system of masses from nothing need not violate energy conservation since the energy of the gravitational field is negative. The intuition occurred to me with great force one day in 1999 while hiking in the Trinity Alps of Northwestern California. Still, it remained only an intuition that I meditated upon. Then in 2002, it occurred to me that instead of the direction of proof from Universe to Void, I should look at the Void, examine its properties, and consider the direction of proof from Void to Universe. This was the insight that resulted in the transition from ‘intuition’ to ‘reason’

The emergence of the new view involved slow increment in the space of intuition, idea and logic space (similar to Darwin)

Extensive background in a large variety of disciplines contributed to the development described here

You may note that there is a ‘struggle’ going on at the edge, not only of human knowledge and being, but at the edge of knowing itself and perhaps of all being. The implication for the concept of Logic, a small but not so small part of the endeavor, is an example. I am struggling, as a side issue, with that example… and with many others. After a thought has been ‘tamed’ it can be expressed in ‘canonical’ form; but all the time new thoughts are arising and, if potent, require also to be tamed… and there is the continuing conflict between the old and their canonical expression and the force of the new, especially when their implications seem to be seductive

A Universal metaphysics

The view I have developed is specified by what I call the fundamental principle of metaphysics—There is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being in the Universe

The fundamental principle is demonstrated in the section Proof

Some equivalent forms of the fundamental principle

The following versions are proved later

The principle of variety. There is no limit to the extension, duration, and variety of being in the Universe—i.e., the Universal metaphysics is implicitly ultimate with regard to variety

The conception of the extension, duration, and variety of being is limited only by empirical fact and Logic

The variety of the Universe is at least as much as that of any conceivable universe

(This goes beyond all sciences and religions… Intimations of the view occur in the history of thought[1] but not with the present precision and nowhere near the present moment)

The principle of reference. Subject to Logic every concept has reference[2] (an Object)

This defines Logic which, in its approximate forms as the logics, is far from empty

A related principle

The principle of actuality. Note: the formulation is tentative. Preliminary. The notion of what is possible must be relative to a context—e.g., some event is physically possible in a laboratory. Relative to all being, the only measure of possibility is actuality. The principle of actuality. The Logically possible is the actual

Since I am not using this principle or the alternate forms, below, in this piece, I shall not provide proofs (from the developments here they will have some self-evidence that, I realize, might not be clear to others)

A collection of alternate forms of the principle

Primitive form—based in the concept of the Universe. The Universe is all being and contains all Objects, specifically all particular and abstract entities and all Law and Form

The reference to ‘Objects’ rather than just Law is clarified in Objects

Original form and original anchor of the metaphysics—basis: the Void. The Void which is the absence of being exists and contains no Object

Since this form implies that the Void may be regarded as a universal generator of being—see Proof below, the Universal metaphysics is explicitly ultimate with regard to depth or foundation… and the depth is finite

Form based in Law. There is no Universal Law. The one Universal law is that being is limited only by Logic

Form based in Logos. The Logos is the Object of Logicit is the Universe in all its variety and detail. All Law is immanent in the Logos

This form of the fundamental principle makes clear that the principle may be a computational tool via the approximation to Logic by the logics. Note… This form is a definition of Logos

Sixth form—basis: determinism. The Universe is absolutely indeterministic

What does this metaphysics entail?

Some consequences of the unlimited variety of being

An infinite variety of physical laws (e.g. no universal light speed,) each with an infinity of recurrent cosmological systems, that abide in the eternity of duration and infinity of extension

Ghost cosmological systems passing through ours with interaction that must be non-zero but below the threshold of human measurement

The Universe passes repeatedly through the Void state (no being, no things, no Laws) on the way from one manifestation to another

The Void state may be regarded as a universal annihilator; it may annihilate a cosmos—e.g. ours—at any time; the annihilation of a cosmos in high energy physics experiments also predicts this (but I have not seen it mentioned that those experiments only magnify odds that are already present)

Identity is not at all limited to human / animal identity. There are and must be phases of higher Identity. Human identity crosses birth and death; and participates in higher identity (when the organism is ready for death, death may be welcome… and would be welcome for the organism in possession of its intelligence. Here, there are shades of Vedanta. However, what is seen here is a variety of much greater proportion than imagined in Vedanta; and Vedanta gives no proof

There is no highest identity—only higher ones; the sequence of identities is without limit in variety; therefore, even though there is repetition, there is also endless adventure and experience

The Universe is absolutely indeterministic

This is suggestive of quantum mechanics (also implications for space, time, relativity which I have not developed in detail and omit here)

The meaning of absolute indeterminism—no (conceived) state avoided; thus, contrary to the common argument against randomness as a source of structure, structure (as well as chaos) is entailed. Incidentally, absolute determinism might be every (conceived) state visited which is equivalent to absolute indeterminism (this meaning of determinism is different than the usual one)

Physicists talk of a ‘Theory of Everything;’ even if there is one for our cosmos there can be no complete one for the entire Universe at a comparable level of precision and detail (the Universal metaphysics is such a theory but avoids the dual precision-detail barrier)

Consequences of the principle that every concept has an Object

The only fictions are those that contradict Logic—fact is stranger than fiction (literature—obviously, art, music / secular and religious… the ‘Objects’ are realized in some Cosmos or the totality of cosmological systems)

Some general consequences

Philosophy—metaphysics, epistemology (not discussed here,) Logic, logics—including modal logic, theory of abstract and particular Objects (practical but no essential distinction which resolves the nature of the abstract and stands against modern thought regarding the abstract,) philosophy of mathematics (e.g. the concept of number must have reference; therefore Platonic realism for proper mathematical concepts… but the reference of the concepts is in this Universe and not in another ideal one)

An example. Why is there something rather than nothing? This has been regarded as a metaphysical problem that is impossible to solve. Heidegger called it the ‘fundamental problem of metaphysics.’ The resolution here is trivial. What I have shown is that the fundamental problem of metaphysics should be What are the things that truly exist? (What that question means is Which of our concepts define Objects? As seen, the answer is rather trivial in the context of the Universe; however, it becomes a significant and non-trivial problem when posed in the context of our cosmos; and the epistemology developed but not taken up here, aided by the metaphysics, provides significant resolution

Religion—obviously… (And in a sense, either there is no such thing as religion… or the concept of religion must be different from the traditional one and there can be no final distinction between religion and other forms of knowing)

Regard the Universe as all being over all extension and duration. Then, if a creator is conceived as something that is external to what is created, the Universe can have no creator

However, there is no Logical restriction on one domain contributing in the creation and evolution of another. In other words this must happen. There is no God but there must be local gods. This gives no support to a god for our Cosmos. The natural explanation is the most likely one and the most reasonable one: the creative principle—origin of matter, life—that is the simplest is the intrinsic one in which complexity emerges via incremental process. But exceptions are necessary

Science—our science is but a single example; also a dual philosophy of science but here omitted

Study of local world... Academic disciplines including the sciences, history—rather obvious. Literature—its significance; similarly music and art (other tentative thoughts)



The Universe is all being over all extension and duration and contains all Law

If a domain exists, its complement exists

The complement of the Universe is the Void which contains no being, no Law

Since the Universe exists, the Void exists

I.e., the Void which contains no being, no Law exists

If from the Void a state whose concept involves no violation of logic does not come about, that would be a Law in the Void

All states whose definition involve no violation of logic exist (somewhere in extension and duration)

Which is the principle of variety


Sources of doubt are obvious. One is the immensity of the conclusions; this, however, is not a rational doubt… but it is reason to seek further doubt and to be critical. Another is the apparent violation of common sense; but this has been addressed above

The primary rational or reasoned doubt concerns the logic of the proof. The crucial step at which doubt occurs is the proof of existence of the Void

Therefore—alternate proofs of various kinds: plausible, play with words, analogy with physics, alternate logic

But doubt remains

But the nature of the doubt should be clear—

The thesis is not disproved; and it is neither illogical nor irrational… and just as science may attempt minimalism in explaining what is observed, the Universe as Logos is minimal with regard to what is not in the Universe

As noted, the thesis has a ‘venerable’ history and was regarded as a principle by various noted thinkers but the precision of their expression was limited; proof was lacking; development of consequences was therefore naturally extremely limited

No violation of science

…or of common sense… even though there may be seeming violation

The ‘logic’ of science

Science does not entail the picture of modern cosmology as a complete picture but only as a practical one

What is logically entailed in science is a range of pictures with a minimal empirical data set at the minimalist end, Logos (the picture of the Universal metaphysics) at the outer limit, and the Cosmos of science in between

In fact, the principle of variety implies that there must be cosmological systems such as ours—ones in which it will seem to its inhabitants that ‘that is all there is’

The normal

Except for Logical necessity, the apparent necessities of our cosmos are immensely probable (over a certain range of time, space, and phenomena;) and except for Logical impossibility the apparent impossibilities are immensely improbable

Taking the apparent necessities and impossibilities as absolute describes the normal behavior of the cosmos

What is normal depends on our knowledge. Mutation of the elements (nuclear fission) which is science today, used to be considered miracles and alchemy

Plans for the future

There is doubt

Even if there were no doubt and even if I knew ‘the Universe’ in all its infinite detail, that knowledge is not the same as experiencing or being the Universe

Therefore, the next phase shall be experimental and transformational

This conflicts with the pressure to develop concepts and theory and I shall have to force myself to make the choice

The metaphysics does not show how

However, the metaphysics ‘makes’ suggestions; the tradition (modern, other) also ‘makes’ suggestions; the combination is synergistic and labeled Dynamics of Being

The way is one of adventure (in this life, I hope)

Much more detail in detailed versions on the Internet

Why Journey in being?


Some hint of the nonlinear character of the development, of starts and forks, of dead ends and continuing thread has been given

Ambition and goals have been ever present but have not dominated my activity and this, it turns out, has led to immensely useful experience and learning… and has been most and enjoyable. Also, with what I learn, goals change

Since I am working at the edge, ‘journey’ is essential

Even as far as the academic side of the development is concerned, academic input has been insufficient

The ideas are interwoven with experience. It is a kind of study or research that, because of the effect of the researcher on what is researched, has come to be appreciated in the social sciences. It is not generally paradigmatic of development in the natural sciences. However, I have come to appreciate, and the longer narratives make clear, that there is an arena in which all knowing remains in the ‘loop’ with living. This point is on the cusp of being ‘individual’ and ‘general’


Knowledge is incomplete; it is completed only via experience, experiment, and transformation of being

There is no highest being; only ‘higher’ being; adventure is without end

Because of doubt, I may regard the metaphysics as a hypothesis that may be tested in the lives of individuals, societies, civilizations and the collection of finite sentient entities of the Universe

Faith is the attitude that is most productive of success in the search

If we regard the practical concerns of our immediate lives as a value and attention to those concerns as productive of value; and if we think of the ultimates described here also of value and in some sense a greater value (especially since the ultimates include the immediate) but realize that attention to the ultimates less likely to be immediately productive; then ‘optimizing expected outcome’ for the human race, will entail allocation of some resources to the ‘ultimate project’ even though the main share of resources will, in the nature of the case, be devoted to the practical. And this ignores any value that may be attached to the illumination of the practical by the ultimate and any implication for the practical that may result from discoveries in the ultimate (analogy: the contribution of theoretical physics)

Faith—though I have doubt and ignorance, my path of action in relation to ‘journey’ should not be altered by certainty and knowledge… Of course, this state has come about on account of the process of discovery through which I have gone and perhaps uncertainty is adventure while certainty of absolute finitude and absolute infinitude are of dubious value (as well as in error)


Consequences for knowledge and being are immense but since some elaboration has already been given there is no need for repetition

Assessments of the validity and value of my view, of implications for action, and for the imperative to and value of such action have, likewise, also been given above


[1] Aristotle, Epicurus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Giordano Bruno, and Immanuel Kant

[2] Intimations of this idea occur in Leibniz, Hume, Wittgenstein; their versions are inferior and lack proof. The sources of the absolute superiority of the present view are: the careful and imaginative working out of the meanings of the various terms, careful and imaginative and experimental selection of the set of terms, and the idea and development and refinement of proof. Also, various concepts (terms) are given epistemological foundation which is omitted here. This foundation is of a necessary character and also the result of a similar working out