JOURNEY IN BEING
METAPHYSICS
The first intrinsic goal—to
develop the foundation
1.
Essential concepts
The essential concepts of the
metaphysics will be seen to be the following. (1) Pre-metaphysical concepts—Experience
and Concept or forms of experience which include experience itself and
the fact of experience. (2) Metaphysical concepts—Being, Universe,
Void, Logos—or logic or Form or Object, and The
Normal
It is essential to be aware of
the present meanings
2.
General observations on and conclusions from the form of
experience—or sentience
To
Objects, that con-formation is a transcendental argument for
‘sufficient’ faithfulness
The
following remarks on the form of experience may be remarked, introduced
to Being, or eliminated
That via experience,
metaphysics is empirical
That existence is necessary for
experience is inherent in the meaning of existence
…
The following has been moved
to the discussion on sentience
In some phases of the universe,
a single sentient form is possible, therefore actual
In this phase, from complexity,
a single sentient form is logically possible but practically so improbable that
there should not be reasonable doubt that this cosmos (world) is populate as in
the multiple centers of experience form of experience and intuition
3.
General conclusions from the concept of Universe that pertain
especially to the idea of all
If an event (thing) is
described but never occurs (exists,) it cannot be possible
If it occurs or exists, it is
possible
I.e. actuality and possibility
are identical in their reference even though apparently distinct with regard to
sense
In fact a definite concept of
possibility has been introduced. This concept of possibility, which refers to
possibility of occurrence in the universe is absolute possibility
It may be thought that some
other notion of possibility may be retained, but since there is nothing outside
the universe, the sense of absolute or universal possibility must be identical
to the sense of actuality—even though there may be an expectation of a
different sense. I.e. a different sense could be deployed before reflection but
it would have to be modified to the new sense—else it would be sense-less
Relative or contextual
possibility refers to occurrence in a similar context. Relative to the
universe, there is no ‘other’ context. When the context is the universe,
relative possibility is absolute possibility
Absolute possibility will be
seen to be logical possibility
Physical possibility e.g.
consistency with the laws of physics is a form of relative possibility
The common or naïve concept of
possibility is relative possibility
Absolute possibility is not to
be confused with the common concept (it is easy to fall into this confusion)
All things are in the universe
Sentience and all of its
constituent and related ideas such as percept, concept, feeling, awareness,
idea, thought, image, are in the universe
While form, pattern and law are
read in the universe or in being, Form, Pattern, and Law must be in the
universe because there is nothing outside the universe. Therefore, Form,
Pattern and Law are immanent in being
Therefore, it is reasonable to
call the metaphysics under development the Metaphysics of Immanence.
It is important to be clear
about the meaning of immanence. That Forms are immanent in being does not mean
that there is some external object or idea that is attached to or enmeshed with
being. It means that Form is of being
4.
General conclusions about and from the concept of the void
The void and its nature.
The void is defined as the absence of being, is shown in what follows to exist
and to have the property not only of containing no thing or Entity but also
containing no Form, no Pattern and no Law
Existence of the void—proof.
As the complement of the universe relative to itself or the complement of any
element of being relative to itself, the void exists
Integrate
with previous paragraph. The
complement of a part exists. As the part approaches the whole, the complement
exists at every stage of the approach and its limit is the void
An objection to the proof.
‘Part is conceptual.’ Counterargument—if existence is merely recognition of
variety, part is not merely conceptual (if part is defined by a conceptual
property, the particular part may be merely conceptual)
Proofs. (1) The
existence of the void should be equivalent to its non-existence; therefore the
void may be taken to exist. (2) Attaching the void to an entity makes no
difference to the constitution of the entity; therefore the void may be taken
to exist. (3) In physics the zero force may be said to exist; it is the force
that does not change uniform motion; this of course is not a proof of the
existence of the void but shows that existence may be assigned to a quantity of
zero magnitude
A clarification.
If the universe has a non-manifest phase, that phase will be the void; of
course this final item does not at all prove existence of the void but provides
one way to see how it may be real rather than merely a conceptual fiction
From the above it seems that
there are infinitely many voids. Each element of being may be regarded as
associated with a void
Properties of the void. This repeats
some of the above. The void exists and contains no thing, Form, Pattern, or
Law. In addition the above, it makes no difference whether there is considered
to be one void or many voids; therefore, the number of voids may be taken to be
one. A void may be associated with the universe as whole and with every element
of being
The void is simple. The
simplicity of the void is ultimate
The void may be regarded as
containing all non-existent and only non-existent objects
Search for a not necessarily
exclusive alternative to the process paradigm of evolution
A variety of intuitions of
different kinds and weight. That creation of a universe from nothing need not
violate conservation of energy. Focus on ‘being’ suggests non-being. That
induction is probable rather than necessary; that necessary induction would
include all laws consistent with data… and that would include no law, i.e. the
only law is the law of logic, and the equivalence of being to absence of being—of
something and nothing. A focus on being is bound to suggest focus on absence.
The changeless behind the changing (Parmenides)
Inspiration from the heart of
the forest
The final inspiration in the
shadow of mountains—the inspiration to focus on the void rather than on this
cosmological system
Note that although this came
after the formal development, there is voidism in Indian and Judaic philosophy,
e.g. the universe as the breathing that is Brahman. Sartre and Heidegger feel
nothingness to be important. Wittgenstein, Hume and Leibniz flirt implicitly
with the void in their suggestions that the only impossibilities are logical
(Leibniz says this and Hume and Wittgenstein say something equivalent i.e. that
‘from the truth of one atomic proposition the truth of another does not
follow.’ Hume’s form omitted the word ‘atomic’)
If a concept, picture or
description involves and entails no contradiction, it must be realized from the
void. This follows since its non-realization would be a Law of or in the void
i.e. a contradiction
Any void generates every void.
It is irrelevant whether there are many voids or just one. The number of voids
may be taken to be one
Any consistent class of
concepts, pictures or descriptions is and must be realized
From every state, including
that of the void state, every other state (excepting contradiction which need
not be mentioned since contradictory ‘states’ are not states) is accessible
i.e. no state is inaccessible
The universe enters (and
leaves) a state of being the void
The fundamental principle of
the Theory of Being, just shown to be true, is the assertion that the entire
system of consistent descriptions is (must be) realized
I.e. the only universal
fictions are the logical contradictions (fact is stranger than fiction)
The concept of absolute
indeterminism is that no state shall be inaccessible
The universe is absolutely
indeterministic
The void is absolutely
indeterministic
Since no state is inaccessible,
structure is necessary; the existence of this cosmological system is necessary.
It might seem that absolute indeterminism would contradict the existences just
mention but, in fact, it makes them necessary
Why this is necessary?
Why this is hard to grasp?
What is its meaning?
What are its implications?
How structure is not just
possible but necessary under absolute indeterminism
In what way might it be a good
thing?
A classical substance is a
uniform and unchanging thing or object from which all variety and change
manifest
The idea of classical substance
arises, perhaps, from a desire to explain the complex from the simple
Substance theory appears to be
desirable relative to a desirability of explanation e.g. of the origin of
formed states of the universe e.g. of the origin of a formed cosmological
system
Monism is the theory that there
is one substance
However, a concern immediately
arises. How would monism explain variety and change? Where in the realm of the
uniform is the varied, where in the realm of the unchanging is the changing?
This is one source of dualism—the
theory that there are two or more substances
Dualism, however runs into the
same problem of explanation because the variety in the world is infinite. A
theory with infinitely many substances is no longer simple and explanation of
change may require reference to shifting combinations and illusion. How do
shifting combinations occur if the substances are unchanging? Illusion may
explain change and variety but this explanation is illicit for the perceiver,
too, must be of substance
What is the problem, then, with
substance theory? Why is substance explanation not forthcoming?
It is the result of the desire
for deterministic explanation
The idea the universe is a
(deterministic) machine has common appeal (especially to certain personality
types,) in religion, and in science (even though quantum theory contains
indeterminism)
To be truly simple instruments
of explanation, substances would be deterministic
Simplicity of determinism is
consistent with the original desire for simplicity in substance
It is the tacit assumption of
determinism that makes substance theory untenable, that requires the
proliferation of substances that still provides no relief
The establishment of formation
from the void and the recognition of the absolutely indeterministic character
of the universe shows that substance theory is untenable and unnecessary
Determinism is the forgotten
twin of substance theory
The void may be taken to be the
basis of explanation that was sought in substance
However, since the void is not
deterministic, it may be improper to refer to the void as a substance
The void is not a true
substance. There is another reason for not regarding the void as a substance.
This reason, already noted, is that although the void may be thought of a
‘base’ state relative to which formation and origins occur, under absolute
indeterminism the role of base state may be played by any state of the
universe. It is equally valid to regard any state of the universe—including
that of the void—as the sub-stance of all being
Yet another reason for not regarding
the void as substance is that although ‘voidism’ may have been regarded as a
substance theory in certain developments of the past, here there voidism is not
posited—the metaphysics does not start with the void and there is nowhere any
assumption of the fundamental character of a category or entity of being as in
materialism, idealism and so on. Instead, the existence and characteristics of
the void and the metaphysical consequences are all derived from basic empirical
facts
The void and its absolute indeterminism
are simpler than substance
The void is ultimately simple
The void and absolute
indeterminism are absolutely simple because they place no explanatory
requirements on the elements of being
The elements of being are,
then, a result and not a pre-condition of explanation and investigation
Another motive to substance
theory is that, under determinism, without substances, there is no explanation
of being that terminates at some concrete place, that explanation is either
incomplete or (andor) non-terminating i.e. without end
From the void there may be both
finite and infinite chains of explanation. The generic explanation of being is
finite
An appeal of substance had been
that of providing a non-relativist philosophy i.e. one that terminates e.g.
with something simple. A relativist philosophy is one that never terminates and
is unsatisfying because it provides no foundation for metaphysics or
philosophical understanding
Explanation from the void
terminates at the void. The resulting metaphysics is not a substance theory of
any kind (whether material or mental like or in the form of facts or
propositions…) but is not a relativist philosophy. It is non-relativist, i.e.
it provides a foundation although not a determinist one
If a determinist foundation is
not possible it cannot be truly desirable
Conversely, if
an (absolutely) indeterministic foundation is necessary it cannot be other than
desirable
Yet another appeal to dualism
had been the absolute separation of mind and matter. Regardless of the
philosophical, theological and scientific motivations for this separation, it
should be clear by now that as distinct substances mind and matter could never
interact and as absolute but dedicated, e.g. within this cosmos, even if
indeterministic, are likely doomed as explanatory experiments
Later, it will be seen that if
mind and matter are released from their local and historical moorings, they may
be realized as nothing but other words for being
This opens up the resolution, in
Mind and in Human being, by what is essentially the theory of
formation from the void, i.e. from absolute indeterminism, of the mind-matter
paradox and to an understanding of the nature of mind and its grounding and
many aspects thereof
Given concepts of mind and of
matter that are not other terms for being, if it is specified that mind and
matter are distinct substances, there can be no causation from mind to matter
(or matter to mind,) and there can be no origin of mind in matter (or matter in
mind)
On the condition that they are
substantially distinct, at least one of mind and matter is not a substance
Regarding matter as the
fundamental element of this cosmos (i.e. as generalized to include energy and
the other elements of theoretical physics,) matter can be a ‘local and
effective substance’ but not a substance
Mind and matter are not
substances
I.e. if they are regarded in
their common senses and as substantial in nature, neither can function as a
metaphysical or universal substance
Comments
on the immensely cosmo-centric view in John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986
An anthropomorphic view sees
being as having human nature. In an anthropocentric view, human being is at the
center of the universe
A modern sentiment perhaps
fostered by four centuries of science and by liberalism is to
de-anthropomorphize thought about non-human being e.g. other entities and the
universe as a whole
However, anthropomorphism is
difficult to escape altogether. Even when explicitly shed, it may remain in the
weak form of cosmomorphism—modeling the universe on the local cosmological
system e.g. taking the laws of physics to be the laws or at least a blueprint for
the laws of the entire universe
Cosmomorphism is the building
into a metaphysics or world picture the characteristics of the immediate cosmos—except
perhaps the most fundamental characteristics (e.g. that there is being, that
there is the universe)
Cosmomorphism is difficult to
escape. However, its retention (mythic, scientific or
philosophical-metaphysical) is infinitely restrictive of vision
Upon positively shedding all
shreds of cosmomorphism, a vast ‘universe’ of possibility immediately appears
It is then possible to
ascertain what elements of that universe are (correspond to what is) real. The
result is a metaphysics of infinite and ultimate depth and breadth
The foregoing possibility is
here demonstrated by construction. A metaphysics of infinite and ultimate depth
and breadth is constructed (the notions of ‘ultimate,’ ‘depth,’ and ‘breadth’
are defined and elaborated)
A guiding principle for the
metaphysician is to obtain conceptual distance from the immediate world without
relinquishing all relations to it, without relinquishing intent to return to
the immediate. The immediate is essential as is home; and is useful for its
suggestive power, inspiration and as test
Home is not invariably a fixed
place
This guiding principle opens up
a path to an adequate and proper conceptual relation to (understanding,
knowledge of) the entire universe
The principle is also available
to the study of particular aspects of the immediate world. It is helpful, for
example, in the study of (human) mind. First, in recognizing the conceptual
nature of mental categories and therefore seeing that neuroanatomy and
neurophysiology (…) are at most half of the picture that is sought. Second, in
the recognition that perception, thought, emotion, intuition and so on are
conceptual and therefore not given as immediately experienced or conceived a
play is allowed that permits movement toward a proper understanding and
foundation of these categories and their relations
For an inhabitant of this
cosmological system, knowledge of the entire universe must be of a general or
abstract character
However, such knowledge is
intensely and perhaps surprisingly illuminating of human knowledge and,
particularly, knowledge of the immediate world
The immediate and the ultimate
are mutually illuminating
These claims are demonstrated
constructively
Another modern sentiment stands
against anthropocentrism
However, it is clearly seen in
the metaphysics and later in Objects, especially in the Theory of
Identity, human being—every human individual—stands at the center of being.
What is now seen is that is not the exclusive case, i.e. all other entities and
creatures also stand at center. It is then perhaps more than a value judgment
to think that human being stands neither above nor below the other forms of life.
What may be lost in thinking of human being as special (which may be seen as
based in insecurity fostered by a false view of being) is gained in identity—in
being centered among the elements of being
Recall
that (1) the possible and the actual are identical and (2) a description,
concept or picture that harbors and entails no contradiction is actual and
therefore possible and necessary. Note that it does not follow and has not been
shown that every actual, i.e. possible state has a description
Therefore, a concept arises of
Logic as the Theory of the Possible or, equivalently, as the Theory of the
Actual
In the preceding statement,
provided that it is understood with sufficient generality, ‘science’ may
replace ‘theory’
Here, use deviates from the
capitalization convention of reserving Title Case for the immanent form and
lower case for the concept. Here, Title Case refers to the present concept,
Logic and lower case refers to the classical concept, logic
What is the immanent form of
Logic? Rather than Logic, it may be labeled the Logos. However, it is the
actual. Therefore the Logos is, trivially since so far all that has been done
is to specify it as another name, the actual
From the foregoing, for a
sentient being, Logic may be regarded as the theory of depicting, conceiving or
describing the possible and the actual
This may appear to be trivial
in meaning (sense) but is not so in significance (reference.) Here is the
ultimate character of Logic
There is a project to develop
this concept of Logic and its consequences
If description is in language,
the theory of proper use of language (grammar) is Logic. From the Metaphysics
of Immanence, this follows with perfect clarity and simplicity. Wittgenstein’s
thought regarding grammar is arrived at from a universal perspective and the
discovery that the thought so follows is experienced as surprising, humorous,
trivial, and deep
It is not the
fact of the connection of logic and being with grammar that is surprising—that
there may be a connection is obvious once it is pointed out
What is
surprising is the clarity and necessity of the connection, that the connection
is one of identity rather than mere relatedness
And it is also
surprising that the connection should have emerged when it was not sought
However, it needs also to be
allowed that conception generally, including sensing, depicting, imaging are a
form of ‘description’ and therefore there is a grammar or logic of conception
and of depiction
Whatever is allowed by logic is
absolutely possible
Deduction concerns truth of one
proposition relative to the truth of another. Therefore, the standard concept
of logic, i.e. logic as deduction, falls within Logic as defined here
The results of induction (e.g.
probable inference) generally and the theories of empirical science in
particular are concerned with patterns of e.g. physical possibility in e.g.
this cosmos. Therefore, what is induced and science as objects fall
under Logic
In general, there appears to be
no infallible or universal ‘method’ of arriving at a scientific theory
by deductive inference from a set of data. Regarded as universal law, scientific
theories, however powerful and beautiful, however ordering or unifying or
applicable, appear to be capable of improvement especially as the domain of
application is expanded
Still, scientific theories may
also be regarded as fact over a restricted domain. It is in this sense that
what is induced and what is science may be seen as falling under Logic
Recalling the identity of the
possible and the actual again, it follows that whatever is possible (actual) is
also necessary
Whatever is allowed by Logic is
absolutely possible and necessary. This kind of necessity may be labeled
‘extensional’ to distinguish it from the common or classical meaning or idea
necessity as one whose truth is independent of the being of things—perhaps as
truth by meaning e.g. by the structure of symbolic systems. Such necessity,
since it is apparently independent of the being of things may be called
intensional. Looking forward to the discussion of abstract objects in Objects,
the distinction between extensional and intensional necessity will appear to
break down except that while extensional necessity refers to objects in the
world, i.e. the universe, intensional necessity appears to refer to symbolic
objects. The discussion of particular and abstract objects shows that the
distinction breaks down (immanence again.) More accurately, the economical,
universal and realistic interpretation of necessity (and, as it shall similarly
turn out, of objects) is one in which there is no distinction with regard to
extension vs. intension or with regard to reference to the actual vs. some
ideal world
The immanent aspect in these
conclusions make it clear that reference is crucial in Logic (and
soundness of language that includes grammar.) If a description or conception or
depiction is Logically i.e. Grammatically sound, it may be realized; rather, it
is realized
It is shown by examples in Logic,
that improper reference may result in paradox and that a number of the
classical paradoxes are resolved by paying proper attention to reference
It certainly appears that
requiring proper reference is sufficient to valid Logic or Grammar
A possible and immensely
important exception to the foregoing is the infinite case—for what is an
infinite object… what is the object whose concept refers to an infinite
extension or an infinite collection? There are preliminary thoughts on the
object side of ‘infinity’ in Objects and in Logic
Is the requirement of proper
reference necessary to validity in Logic and Grammar? Since various
semantic paradoxes (Russell…) and set-theoretic paradoxes
(Zermelo-Fraenkel-Skolem and von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel) have been resolved by
non-referential artifacts, the requirement of proper reference may be
unnecessary
However, this
conclusion is not clear. The valid aspects of the various analyses (Russell…)
should be studied to see if reference is the root justification (Kripke employs
‘grounding’)
Secondly, a
general study of the nature of ‘logical objects’ and infinite objects may be
undertaken to analyze necessary and sufficient conditions of validity including
the important case of the necessity and sufficiency of proper reference
These thoughts
define a research project
In any case, however, it
appears reasonable that requiring proper reference may be rich in consequences
This idea and
the remaining thoughts in this section continue the possibility of the
foregoing research project
It is now clear that in the
above sense of Logic, mathematics and science are chapters of Logic. The kind
of chapters that they are, however, seems to be different. Logic concerns the
actual and its descriptions. Mathematics appears to concern those forms that
are amenable to ‘formal’ treatment. Science, as it is typically practiced,
concerns the forms—patterns, theories and laws—of this cosmological system. Is
the inclusion of mathematics in Logic the logicist thesis of Russell? Whether
it is shall depend on where logic is thought to stop and where mathematics
begins. It is not the case that what is traditionally taken to be logic (as in
the Frege-Russell Logicism) is shown here to found or contain mathematics
In reviewing the developments,
especially those regarding the fact of being as implicit in its meaning, the General
metaphysics, the discussion of Form, and the present section A
concept of Logic… , it seems that their ideas veer (both implicitly and
explicitly) in the direction of Wittgenstein’s Tractacus (whose influence has
significance here) and go beyond it in some aspects. The ideas that the
universe is (in the global mode of description) all its ‘states’ and
that all its states are all states is close to Wittgenstein’s’ thought
that the universe is the ‘sum’ of its atomic facts. A distinction between the
present thinking and that of Wittgenstein is that, here, all states are not
given at the outset of the analysis and that their kind and enumerability and
denotability (reference) is not given at outset or assumed to be possible even
in principle. Additionally, there are parts of the Tractacus (e.g. the
discussion of Ethics—see Objects) that suffer from an implicit substance thinking
regarding the nature of the Object
The backward
foundation, elimination of substance thought, and elaboration of the ideas of
the Tractacus is a project that requires patronage, that awaits keen analysis
The fundamental principle shows
that being must have power
Knowability is a form of power.
Must being be knowable? In the common meaning of knowledge, the answer is ‘no.’
However there is a necessary and consistent extension of knowledge to the root
which (1) reminds us that the special status—a not of this worldliness or
immateriality—that we often assign to mental content is mistaken and (2) shows
that being must be knowable
In a metaphysics of ultimate
depth and breadth, many meanings will be altered, broadened or deepened—and
introduced. This suggests that common meaning is fluid and stable i.e.
alterations are necessary but not arbitrary—but the extended system may be
profoundly different from projection of common meaning to root without
alteration
The ultimate character with
regard to depth is explicit and implies that while alternative systems of equal
depth are possible, no deeper foundation is possible
A variety of alternatives may
be developed
The ultimate in breadth is
implicit. This means that while variety of being is ever open discovery, this
variety is ever contained within the principles of the metaphysics; it means
that the realization of every consistent idea—myth or legend or fiction—lies
with the domain of the system
Existence and properties of
the void
The fundamental principle and
its proofs
Possibility, actuality, logic
The ultimate depth and breadth
of the metaphysics
In repudiating substance,
Heidegger went, roughly, one third of the way to an ultimate metaphysics. This
means that he did not achieve it at al—he did not even eliminate substance, he
merely though correctly, repudiated it— but what he did was still significant.
The remaining steps are the overcoming of determinism—a well as common
causation—and replacing intuition by logic or, perhaps, seeing identity of
intuition and logic
What is owed to the tradition
is unclear. Here being has been reduced to triviality as opposed explicitly
deep but it is in this trivial character that it is ultimately deep. Certainly,
and even though there is a host of intimations from Plato, Aristotle, Judaism,
Veda, Upanishad, Vedanta, Leibniz, Hume, Wittgenstein—no one before has gone
all the way
That
cosmology proper begins with form and subsequent topics may have less detail in
metaphysics and more in cosmology
Note,
however, that cosmology truly begins with experience and its forms and that the
line between cosmology and metaphysics in their pure meanings is blurred—in
their expansive meanings they are identical to one another and to Logic
Since all descriptions that
entail no contradiction become manifest, a Form may be regarded as a more durable
manifestation
All structure may be regarded
as that of Form
Form may be regarded as coming
out of the void
Form is immanent in being i.e.
it is of being rather than imposed
Some Forms are more durable
than others
The distinction between the
Forms of lesser (transient) and greater (durable) Forms is not one of kind
Actual Forms are dynamic
A Form of infinite duration
(static Form) is not a realized Form and is not capable of decay or
annihilation or of interaction. I.e. static Forms have no origins—cannot come
into being—and if one had being it would have no end. A static Form has no
significance. The existence and non-existence of static Forms are without
distinction
The existence of a static Form
capable of interaction (dynamics) would constitute a Law of the void—in
addition to being obviously (inherently) contradictory in nature. The being of
a static form is logically impossible. The existence of a such static Form
would be a violation of any Logic immanent in being (this statement anticipates
but is not used at all to found the concept of Logic of the present narrative)
All Forms are dynamic.
There are, as has been seen, no static forms. Forms have origins and
ends
Mechanisms are mentioned below,
in Metaphysics, and are considered further in Cosmology
There is no distinction in kind
between a transient and a (durable) form
The condition of durability may
also be called stability and the characteristic that results in
stability may be called symmetry. Because, with exceptions such as the
void, there are no eternally durable forms, there are no absolutely stable and
perfectly symmetric forms. The durable forms are relatively stable and near
symmetric
That all structure is Form and
since there are no absolute substances, the view of being that emerges has
Platonic characteristics
As already noted, Form is
immanent in being. Form is not imposed. Nor is the immanence that of a foreign
kind. Form is of being, of entities as much as is being-hood… as much as is
entity-hood (and will be seen to be capable of consistent regard as the same
kind as entity-hood)
The idea of Form as foreign or
imposed has probable origin in that Form is experienced as form, i.e. as
perceived and therefore ascribed the vague status of an object residing in
‘mental space’ but not in actual space
However, perfection (symmetry)
of form is never attained, is logically impossible and is therefore not
desirable
All actual worlds are in the
one universe
Forms reside in this world
See, also, discussion of
sentience and sentient form, later
See, also, discussion of logos
and logic, later
That
cosmology proper begins with form and subsequent topics may have less detail in
metaphysics and more in cosmology
Note,
however, that cosmology truly begins with experience and its forms and that the
line between cosmology and metaphysics in their pure meanings is blurred—in
their expansive meanings they are identical to one another and to Logic
The
following follow from the fundamental principle
The number of states of the
universe is infinite
There are infinite collections
The concept of ‘the class’ of
consistent concepts presents a problem. What is that class? How is it formed?
This question defines a research project, first, in the concept and approaches
to construction—realization—of the class and, second, in its implications for
variety
I.e., there is a project to
study the idea of the class or system or classes of consistent conceptions,
pictures, and descriptions
A source of the idea to this
project is the intuition that while the fact of infinite variety—and some
aspects of variety—are revealed, that variety may have deep and
intricate limitations
The issue may have resolution
in terms of the concept of patch, mentioned in the context of global and
local descriptions
There is another kind of care
that is needed in considering what is consistent and therefore actual. Consider
‘There is an individual who knows everything!’ Although the claim may seem
absurd, there is no explicit logical impossibility. However, depending on what
‘know everything’ is taken to mean, there may be a logical impossibility
relative to that meaning
The universe is infinitely more
varied than the description in any myth, any fictional account, any scripture,
and any science. The only restriction on variety is the Logical principle
stated below
The universe is infinitely more
varied than this cosmological system
The ‘regular’ behavior of this
cosmological system in which there is structure and there appear to be
inaccessible states, in which there is causal like behavior is termed ‘normal.’
The meaning of the normal, however, must, at least initially, be an open
concept because, although, this cosmos is the necessary inspiration, it may not
be the prototype—of what is sought
An entire panorama of
cosmological (universal) possibility and actuality opens up. Here are two
examples that are of course both subject to the requirement that no
contradiction should be involved or entailed. (1) Any piece of fiction is
realized. (2) Any known state of any cosmological system is infinitely repeated
in the universe. The implication of these examples is clearly immense.
Description of the panorama is taken up in Objects (under the topic of
Identity,) in Cosmology and in Faith
It is possible to talk
of a map of the universe. A typical scientifically informed person today might
think of the universe as the physical universe originating with a singularity
(the big bang) about 20 billion years ago and about 20 billion light years
across. That ‘physical universe,’ here called the local cosmological system is
a finite dot in the infinity of the universe as revealed here. The
infinitesimal character of the local system regards not only extent and
duration but also kind of being. ‘Kind’ includes constitution, nature,
magnitude, longevity, inclusivity, and, when ‘intelligent,’ kinds and
magnitudes of ability
Any organism with sufficient
ability and time will discover and realize all intensionally necessary truths
(this may happen even under restriction to the normal but without that
restriction, will certainly happen.) Intensional or logical necessity is
explained below. Desire and dedication may immensely enhance the efficiency of
the discovery but are not logically necessary
Why
this section?
They repeat—the universe is
infinitely more varied than this cosmological system. This raises the following
concerns. First, it may appear to question the very regularity of this
cosmos—however, not only does it not question the regularity on some sort of
‘probabilistic’ basis, the Theory of being—the fundamental principle—shows the
necessity of such systems. Second, it may be thought of as de-centering. In
general, the advances in the thought in which human being appears to be farther
and farther from center, are de-centering only relative to a certain view and
certain personality types. The enjoyment of the moment is a form of eternity…
And, Theory of being and related developments (Theories of actuality,
identity…) show that there is no being that is not at center (human being is
de-centered only if it is assumed that human centeredness is unique)
The ‘regular’ behavior of this
cosmological system in which there is structure and there appear to be
inaccessible states, in which there is causal like behavior is termed ‘normal.’
The meaning of the normal, however, must, at least initially, be an open
concept because, although, this cosmos is the necessary inspiration, it may not
be the prototype—of what is sought
From the void, the universe
must enter a state of being. This resolves what has been called the fundamental
problem of metaphysics i.e. why there is being
This entering may be viewed as
‘entering’ the void state. It may also be viewed as annihilation of the
universe
The universe may be in the void
state or in a manifest state. Both are actual, neither eternal. There is no
reason from the perspective of possibility that it is currently in a manifest
state. However, in the void or non-manifest state there is no experience of a
universe. If there is experience, the universe must be in a manifest state
The developments regarding
Mind, suggest that in any manifest state there is experience but not
necessarily of the focused, acute kind that is experienced by the living beings
of earth
There are further cosmological
conclusions e.g. that there are infinitely many normal cosmological systems,
that excepting when a contradiction is entailed, every actual state of being
within the universe and every actual description of a domain of the universe
will recur infinitely in time and space
Since the void is absolutely
indeterministic, and a void may be regarded as attached to every state and
every domain (as the complement of that state or domain relative to itself,)
the annihilation may be regarded as being brought about by the void
There is no especial
significance to ‘annihilation by the void;’ the annihilation may be
regarded as self annihilation
In the sense that every state
flows from the it, every state is equivalent to the void
In the global perspective it
might be said that the universe ‘is’ in a state of the void; however, it may be
also said that it ‘is’ not; this form of the assertion encourages the twin
habit of using both local and global perspectives but whether it is otherwise
enlightening is open to question
Every state is equivalent to
every other state
All is change and flux and all
is unchanging (Parmenides, Plato) may be read equally from the Metaphysics of
Immanence but of course is dependent on how the reading is done
The origin of a formed or even
transient cosmos from the void is indeterministic
The origin is necessarily
indeterministic (the void does not in any sense contain or map
deterministically to a formed universe)
Although the void may be
thought of a ‘base’ state relative to which formation and origins occur, under
absolute indeterminism the role of base state may be played by any state of the
universe
The concept of causation may be
seen as a topic in cosmology
Cause can be seen as
interaction among dynamic forms that have similar characteristics but can also
be interpreted as a Form that includes the interacting form
There can be no causal relation
among static forms and there is little causal relation among highly transient
forms
In general, causation is little
like the causation of classical physics or even the probabilistic causation of
quantum physics
There is no universal causation
of the classical or quantum kinds. Perhaps the label quasi-causation or normal
causation is more applicable than causation. Such quasi or normal causation
must have exception
There are and must be phases
that are normally causal and normally deterministic
As a result universal absolute
indeterminism (no unaccessed states) such phases must exist but cannot be
absolutely causal or absolutely deterministic (in the classic sense)
All causation is at most
quasi-causation; all determinism is at most quasi-determinism
As a result of universal
interaction, there must be some weak kind of universal causation
It is seen again how much truth
is affected by meaning
The universe is absolutely
indeterministic (absolute indeterminism obtains when the only inaccessible or
unaccessed states are the logically inaccessible states)
It is often thought that
indeterminism cannot explain form and structure
Since there are no inaccessible
and unaccessed states in absolute indeterminism, states of form and structure must
too be accessed (the probability or population of the universe by formed states
or cosmological systems is addressed below)
The absolute indeterminism of
the universe is that no states are unaccessed. This contains the absolute
determinism that all states are accessed (except those whose access harbors or
entails contradiction)
The absolute determinism
regards which states are accessed i.e. all states are accessed. The absolute
indeterminism regards the manner including sequence of access
Mechanism is an aspect of
cosmology
Mechanisms or explanations show
only probability, relative stability, near symmetry
While it may be thought that
formed states are relatively improbable relative to transient states, near
symmetry and relative stability imply durability
Combined with the selective
nature of perception (higher perceptivity in the cosmological systems of
certain types of greater complexity,) it is reasonable to claim that this
results in a greater population of formed and perceived states. However,
if a state with high degree of formation invariably results in higher
perception i.e. perception of the form over mere feeling, perception, then,
does not entail any additional selective character
This kind of reflection may
have implications for whether a formed cosmological system must have life andor
sentience. There are reflections of a different nature on this topic in below
and, later, in Mind
The normal is the generic term
for the being of a formed cosmos in an absolutely indeterministic background
Mechanism is typically
associated with the normal
Whereas formation by a single
step is logically possible and therefore necessary, it seems that incremental
variation and selection (of relatively stable states) is far more probable
5.
General conclusions from the concept of Universe that pertain
especially to the idea of part or domain
If a creator is external to
what is created, the universe can have no creator
One part of the universe may
create another part
That is logically possible.
However, origins from a void may, in terms of the standard mechanism, be far
more likely
The form of one cosmological
system may be ‘informed’ by that of another or of the background universe. It
is perhaps typical that complexity and intelligence are self-formed while
formation from the outside occurs for at most initial conditions. This is
because the ‘ability’ of a system that forms another may, with exceptions, be
of a far greater level andor complexity
Omnipotence (God) as an
explanation of form is seriously lacking because as explanation of origins,
there must also be an explanation of the origins of the omnipotence which is
less rather than more likely than self-formation. From Theory of being and from
eternal duration, self-formation is not at all likely; its probability is in
fact unity. In any case, arguments regarding ‘external’ formation and its
extent must be on a case by case basis
Although the manifest universe
may be seen as coming out of the void, it is a stretch of meaning to say that
the void created the manifest universe
In no deterministic or strictly
causal sense did the void create the manifest universe (or any cosmological
system or domain)
However given the universe in
the void state, the following are true. ‘The’ universe will manifest (in this
sentence it is pertinent to note that ‘universe’ is used in a sense that is
local in duration.) Myriad cosmological systems will emerge (from this and
subsequent visitations to the void state)
There is a project to
investigate the meanings of cause according to which the void may be said to
cause the manifest or a domain or in which one domain may be said to cause or
create another domain
…
6.
General conclusions from the existence and form of this
cosmological system
The earlier discussions of
Form, General Cosmology and Mind and Matter are relevant to the Local or
Physical Cosmology and other local cosmologies
The forms of this cosmological
system are relevant to General Cosmology and other local cosmologies
The normal behavior of this
cosmological system include local but not pervasive deterministic-like and
causal behavior—and non-causal behavior as in the quantum description at
microscopic levels that often but not invariably averages out at macroscopic
levels and which permits a number of otherwise inexplicable macroscopic
behaviors; the mechanism of evolution as a normal but not necessary mechanism
for evolution and, more generally, of becoming—including as framework
coexistent and, sometimes, within which other mechanisms may explain behavior
or suggest that behavior is perhaps beyond explanation in some given modes;
local separation of space and time but their global intersection due to the
simultaneous origin of extension and duration in formation and therefore their
character as intrinsic to being; and the normal forms of sentience that follow
7.
Conclusions from the form and facts of experience or sentience
A sentient field reveals mind
Sentience may be regarded as a
field of sentience or as a field of bodies with experience
There is no essential
difference between these depictions
A contingent difference would
be a ghost
Excepting ghosts, there is no
difference
Ghosts are subject to the same
analysis
If there are ghosts, they fall
under the same analysis. If there are ghosts, they are merely another kind of
entity
The sentient-field and
body-experience field descriptions of organisms in the world are merely
different terminologies
In some phases of the universe,
a single sentient form is possible, therefore actual
In this phase, from complexity,
a single sentient form is logically possible but practically so improbable that
there should not be reasonable doubt that this cosmos (world) is populate as in
the multiple centers of experience form of experience and intuition
Except for the eternal
solipsist, solipsism, i.e. occasional solipsism, is possible and necessary on
account of the Theory of being
The universe might be
consistently seen as a solipsist (however, since it enters a phase of being the
void it would not be an eternal solipsist even though the universe it is
eternal)
Therefore, any argument against
solipsism must be practical, i.e. in such and such a kind of system of
beings e.g. durable evolved, solipsism would be impoverished or impossible
The world of human experience
is far richer than it could be if the individual were a solipsist
Sentience may be seen as a
relation among forms. This sets up the possibility of error, paradox and
correction
Alternately, sentience may be
seen as a form that includes the related forms and their relation. These forms
are Forms as Forms and are not the forms of experience
Excepting paradox, all forms
have the possibility of sentience
Significant sentience requires
sufficient durability for the appropriate elaboration of form
8.
Conclusions regarding the nature of the metaphysics as epilogue
and prologue to the general conclusions of the metaphysics
The possibility of systematic
metaphysics
Logic, properly conceived as
the theory of the possible or equivalently as the theory of the actual, or as
the theory of descriptions, is the one law of the universe—of all being
The metaphysics achieves
absolute non-cosmorphism, i.e., in their foundation, the metaphysics and
cosmology eliminate all reference to the particular form of this or any cosmos
The void is the absence of all
objects which includes entities, forms, laws and patterns; the void exists
The universe is absolutely
indeterministic; this means that there are no not-accessed states except the
impossible or contradictory states—i.e., those ‘states’ whose description
involve contradiction
All the necessary objects have
an empirical character from the forms of experience which would not exist
without the corresponding necessary objects
9.
Objections and refutations
The void is an event
Some foci for general
objections. (1) What may appear to be the use of mere concepts to
demonstrate actual or real consequences. (2) Quantum theory implies that the
absence of things—the ground state of the local cosmos—is be the quantum vacuum
which is far from the absence of being but is a seat of enormous of energy, a
place of continuous creation and destruction of particle pairs. (3) The violation
of common sense in the ideas of ‘something from nothing’ and the realization of
all consistent systems of description and, in physics, possible violations of
the principle of conservation of energy. Responses to the objections follow
(1) The intensely empirical
character of the universe, the void and so on has been discussed at length. It
is the fact that these necessary objects are so close to ‘seeing’ that, in
their immediacy, their empirical character may escape notice. These objects are
not mere concepts. (2) The quantum vacuum is the seat of patterns of
behavior that are laws. The void contains no law and is therefore ‘below’ the
quantum vacuum in simplicity and fundamental character. The void ‘generates’
the quantum laws of this—our—cosmological system as well as the laws and
entities of all cosmological systems. (3) Common sense and intuition—at least
for some persons—is indeed violated; there is nothing, it may appear, in common
day-to-day life that suggests the origin of a cosmos out of a void. However,
common sense, experience, and intuition are situated in the everyday world. It
may be said of such intuition that its extrapolation to the universe is an
extrapolation of a mere or contingent empirical fact—or absence of fact—to the
form of intuition and, more, to the form of the necessary. That they (may) show
no origin of being from absence does not imply that such origin is impossible
or that it does not occur. Self-aware empirical common sense is silent on such
issues and—should it desire to know—will seek to follow the analysis. It
appears to be a fact of human variety that some individuals are bound to their
experience more than others. However, as will be seen in Human being,
both binding and freedom are important to being human—and to think that freedom
is essentially and only destructive or essentially and only creative are
essentialist over-reactions to the imperfections and possibilities of freedom. It
is interesting that the integration of intuition and analysis is to algebraic
thought where the partial replacement of intuition by analytic expression
allows the analysis of forms not amenable to intuition… Attention now turns to
the issue of violation of the principle of conservation of energy. It is an
immediate consequence of the fundamental principle that, regarding the
entire universe, conservation of energy does not—cannot—obtain and that—near—conservation
laws are perhaps features of relatively stable worlds. However, since,
in terms of physical theory, energies can be positive as well as—e.g.
gravitational field energy—negative, spontaneous creation of ‘a universe’ from
nothing need not violate the physical principle of conservation of energy
10.
Faith and affirmation
What is meant by method is a
system of fundamental insights regarding the nature of being and fundamental
patterns of thought and transformation that are conducive to and arise and are
revisable with the practice of thought and transformation
The most general aspects of
‘method’ will be the Methods of Theory of being
Specific aspects of method
arise in the topics, e.g., Human being
In Faith it will be
observed that, even in the absence of insight, the eminence of epistemology may
be seen as a loss of nerve in deference to an absolute reign of reason—that
necessarily even dethroned itself
Perhaps, however, it is not
taking reason far enough that is its downfall. Perhaps in the limit, reason,
faith and intuition are one