The way of
being
Anil Mitra, Copyright © June 22, 2022—June 23, 2022
Home
1.
The secular view of
the world—the world is essentially as it is seen in experience, which
includes science—has truth, but it does not show what is not in the world.
That is, from the secular view, it is not valid to conclude that the secular
world is all there—that all that exists is anything like the experiential
world.
2.
The secular view is—at
least tacitly—the dominant view among educated areligious and nonreligious
persons. Why? It is a natural default to see the world as the experiential
world. It is the most common nonreligious view and is therefore affirmed by
common culture. We are inculcated into becoming indignant and being
dismissive toward more inclusive views (ones that do not reject the truth of
the secular but go beyond it). The religious and many common metaphysical
alternatives range from fantasy to the irrational. This tends to shut down
imagination and questioning of the secular view (of course we are encouraged
to question within the secular view).
3.
It is consistent
with the secular view that the universe is the realization of logical
possibility (this assertion has been named the ‘fundamental principle of
metaphysics’). Since our experiential world is one possibility, to say “but
we do not experience all possibilities” is not an objection.
4.
Can the assertion
that the universe is the realization of logical possibility be proved? Yes.
The very simplest proof is (i) the laws of nature are real—that is, they
exist (ii) therefore, the void (nothingness) has no laws (iii) if from the
void a logically possible state did not emerge, it would be a law (iv) all
logically possible states emerge from the void (v) that is, the universe is
the realization of (all) logical possibility.
5.
Are there objections
to this principle? Yes. There are many. They are addressed at http://www.horizons-2000.org. If you, the reader, are a truthful
objector to the view, you will regard it as a challenge to articulate and
criticize your objections (rather than have vague and nagging concerns).
6.
What does the
fundamental principle entail? What methods are available? The method is that
of (a) imaginative formulation of possibilities (the history of ideas will be
helpful) and (b) critical evaluation. Critical evaluation will have two
stages (i) logical analysis (our logics, criticism of our logics, search for
‘new’ logics) (ii) analysis and use of paradigms from science. The second
point has the objection—but our sciences are approximate and hardly
universal. The response is (1) the fundamental principle implies that the ultimate
real is given and far greater than secular and even common religious
‘reality’ (as seen next) (2) we have no better pragmatic paradigms than our
common ones, especially those from science (3) we will use our paradigms
judiciously to tentatively evaluate the likelihood of realizing different
scenarios that arise in imagination and survive logical criticism. We now
proceed to the entailments of the fundamental principle in two stages.
7.
Stage 1—logic. The
universe has identity; the universe and its identity phase between the
manifest and non-manifest and are limitless in extension, duration, variety,
and peak of being; thus, the universe has arrays of cosmoses in more and less
transaction with one another and the void; the cosmoses have limitless variety
of physical law and logics (one source of the varieties of logic is the many
possible modes of expression); every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos.
The individual realizes and is, over time, the ultimate; this is given.
However, there are efficient paths and ways to the ultimate, which involve
intelligence as negotiation for the world and not just in the world; there
are pleasure and pain, both unavoidable, neither to be excessively sought or
avoided; enjoyment is the appreciation of all elements of experience and the
world; if enjoyment is a value, realization of the ultimate is an imperative.
Path negotiation ought to be not just following of developed pathways but developing
pathways and responding to context as well.
The aim of being and the way of being is shared discovery and realization of
the ultimate. Realization is intrinsic or experiential and instrumental or
‘physical’. Degrees of intrinsic realization are very possible in ‘this
life’; instrumental realization is less likely in this life, but is given
over the multiplicity of lives—it occurs, not necessarily by alteration of
our laws of physics, but by return of awareness to the womb of the world and
emergence in other worlds; there is also the instrumental possibility (and
therefore necessity) of individuals and civilizations migrating from cosmos
to cosmos on the way to the ultimate.
The logics are discovered, but they derive from a principle—the principle of
possibility and relative to that principle the impossible is absolutely unrealizable
(on other, lesser, accounts of logical possibility, the logically impossible
for one world may be realized in another).
Is all logical possibility realized? Yes—thus an account in any religious
text, no matter how unlikely it may seem, but stripped of its inconsistencies,
is realized somewhere-and-when in the universe. What is the significance of
this realization—is it ‘robust’ (as defined below)? What are the more robust
modes of realization and what are their ways? We now turn to this question. Whereas
the conclusions of this stage, ‘logic’, are given, those of the next are generally
characterized by probability.
8.
Stage 2—pragmatic
and paradigmatic. In this stage the concerns are means or how of things
(i.e., general objects, which include relationship, process, and system) and
probability. Formulating means and judging probability are characterized as
hypothetical and speculative, even though the ‘things’ are possible and
necessary.
Here is an example. Our cosmos is characterized by deterministic mechanism
(e.g., Newtonian Mechanics), probabilistic determinism, i.e., mechanistic
determinism in balance with indeterminism (some interpretations of quantum
theory), and a similar balance in incremental evolution (evolution of
life, for which variations in inheritance are indeterministic—on some
accounts—and natural selection is deterministic). How did our cosmos come
into being and what sustains its ongoing being so far? Or did it come into
being—and if not, what sustains it?
The general mechanisms or paradigms are provided by the previous italicized
phrases—deterministic mechanism, probabilistic mechanism, and incremental
evolution (by variation and selection—regarding which a key aspect is that of
seeming design without design aforethought).
We now suggest that it is highly likely that our cosmos came into being by a
mix of mere transient and evolutionary formation from the void (this of
course is interpretation, it may equally be seen as having come into being by
evolutionary transition from another cosmos). The ‘mechanism’ would be
transients from the void occurring and decaying until a more stable transient
emerges, its stability being due to its form and near symmetry, from which,
an incremental evolution has a base. Of course, it may have come into being
by a single improbable but not impossible step—void ® cosmos.
The mechanism is not necessary in that it does not obtain for all structured
cosmoses but rather, most cosmoses, if our paradigm has universality, emerge
incrementally; at the same time, it is necessary that some cosmoses emerge in
a single step (Bertrand Russell’s observation that it is possible for our
cosmos to have done so, say, five minutes ago); however, the incremental
emergence is robust and characterizes robust systems.
What of the occurrence of the ‘religious cosmoses’? Many of them would seem
to be improbable, therefore infrequent, less stable, and less significant
(the frequency may be extremely low, yet in a limitless universe, there will
still be limitlessly many). However, others, e.g., the universal being of
some religions and philosophies is necessary in its occurrence.
A second example. What is a mechanism of pathways from limited being to
ultimate being? As we are both experience and formed, so there is intrinsic
and instrumental realization. Here, I will say no more than (i) the intrinsic
ways have been investigated in various ancient practices such as yoga;
however this implies that the discovery of yoga is at a beginning rather than
an end (ii) the instrumental ways may be based in our modern sciences and
technologies, which, too, are at a beginning (iii) even if the realization is
incomplete for our beings in our cosmos (iv) the signature of our beings is
eternal (v) and is and will be manifestly taken up, e.g., in other cosmoses.
|