JOURNEY IN BEING

METAPHYSICS

Home

The first intrinsic goal—to develop the foundation. 1

On ‘method’ 22

 

The first intrinsic goal—to develop the foundation

1.      Essential concepts

Essential concepts of the metaphysics

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

The general, universal or necessary forms of experience

That via experience, metaphysics is empirical

That existence is necessary for experience is inherent in the meaning of existence

Reflection on the forms of experience pertaining to ‘I’ or ‘self’ or ‘this’ center of experience—and ‘other’ centers of experience

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

Some conclusions about general metaphysics

Actuality, possibility, and necessity

Actuality and possibility. Kinds of possibility: absolute and contextual

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)

A Metaphysics of Immanence

Immanence of Law, Pattern and Form—a Metaphysics of Immanence

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

General metaphysics. The void

The void, its existence and nature

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 voidproof. 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)

Other proofs of and clarifications of existence of the void

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

Some properties of the void—combine with the above

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

Sources of the focus on the void

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’)

Theory of being. The fundamental principle

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)

On substance and determinism

The indeterminism of the universe is absolute

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?

The Metaphysics of Immanence is a non-relativist philosophy without foundation in substances

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>>>

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?

Dualism>>>

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

‘The’ problem of substance theory is the problem of determinism…

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

Metaphysics of substance and metaphysics of determinism are duals>>>

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 and the elimination of substance. That the void may assume some aspects of the role of substance but is not a true substance. Simplicity of the void

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

Substance continued. Mind and matter

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

On anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism… and cosmomorphism and cosmocentrism

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

Logos and Logic

Logic as Theory of possibility—relation to the classical idea of logic

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

Logos

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

Logic as the theory of depicting, conceiving or describing the actual—and the possible

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

In its present conception, Logic is the one law of the universe

Whatever is allowed by logic is absolutely possible

The classical view of logic falls within Logic

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

Science as hypothetical versus factual depends on an open versus fixed perspective or domain

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

The method of science is not 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

Science itself may be seen as Logic

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

More on Logic and grammar. On necessity. On the importance of reference in 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

Logic and the problem of the infinite

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

Mathematics and science as chapters in logic

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

Rethinking Wittgenstein’s Tractacus

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 logical status of the metaphysics

Power and knowledge

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

A metaphysics of ultimate depth and breadth

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

A metaphysics of ultimate depth and breadth—its logical status

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

Further details of the metaphysics

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

Form. The nature of Form

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

Form and transient

There is no distinction in kind between a transient and a (durable) form

Symmetry. Platonic aspects of the character of 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

There is no Platonic world

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

General cosmology and metaphysics

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

There are no fictions except contradictions

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

Who is resident at the center of all being?

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 normal

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

The universe enters a stage of being the void

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

The states of the universe. Annihilation. Equivalence among states. Indeterminism of ‘origins’

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

Causation and determinism

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

No universal causation

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

Absolute indeterminism, form, and absolute determinism

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 and explanation

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

Necessary versus contingent mechanism
Also need space, time and matter

5.      General conclusions from the concept of Universe that pertain especially to the idea of part or domain

The idea of creation and of a creator

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

In-formation

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

The abstract idea of God

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

The void is not a causal creator

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)

I.e. the void is not and cannot be a causal agent of creation

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)

However, whether the void may be regarded as a causal agent depends on the meaning of ‘causation’

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

Conclusions for items 6, 7, and 8 are above. If none of the conclusions are brought here, eliminate the particular section

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

Realistic views of the universe as one of a field of bodies and minds, one of a field of matter, one of a field of sentience cannot be essentially distinct

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

Solipsism

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. Sentient Form

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

What will or should a metaphysics do?

The possibility of systematic metaphysics

Equivalent characterizations of the 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

The empirical content of metaphysics

All the necessary objects have an empirical character from the forms of experience which would not exist without the corresponding necessary objects

Meta-metaphysics

9.      Objections and refutations

Criticism is enhanced by alternative formulation

The development of the conclusions (the Theory of being) is a source of objections

Some objections

The method of analysis and refutation

In addition to analysis of the meaning of objections, the following generic approaches to ‘refutation’ occur. Analysis and improvement of Theory of being and its concepts e.g. the fundamental principle defines rather than merely employs logic… as a response to real or apparent paradoxes; general revision of concepts. Interpretation, especially via the concept of the normal and building a coherent picture as a response to absurdity. The idiosyncratic refutation should not be ruled out

Appeal to value e.g. the idea of faith which is not so much refutation as it is affirmation in the face of uncertainty (but not contradiction)

Analysis of the world-view, if any, implicit in the objections and observation that the shedding of invalid or merely local ‘world-views’ is and must be liberating

That the development (search) for objections and their refutation (or otherwise) must be an aspect of any ‘method’

Specific objections

The void is an event

Objections and refutationsfrom ‘06

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

Appeal to value e.g. the idea of faith which is not so much refutation as it is affirmation in the face of uncertainty (but not contradiction)

Faith is that attitude, routine or inspired, which is most productive of action in the face of doubt—of quality of being in the face of fear, of ends in the face of destruction

Faith is affirmation of being (over mere system)

The attitude of faith is not fixed but is adaptable and adapts to circumstance

Faith is not identical to but is not other than reason

Reason is an element of faith

At least on account of limits to reason, reason is not all of faith

There is an enhance meaning that includes intuition and feeling in which reason approaches faith

Faith is not belief

Adherence to what is merely absurd or merely given on authority is not what is here meant by faith

Above, the word ‘merely’ is significant. What rings of the absurd may not in fact be absurd. Often, appeal to what may appear to be absurd in a paradigmatic or common view is in fact an appeal to recognize limits to the common, the paradigm or the canon. Authority may be occasionally respected for its authenticity, for its power over the world rather than its force or punitive character

On ‘method’

The idea of method

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