Once, years ago, hiking up Long Canyon, branches were breaking off trees because of a high wind. The breaking sounded like rifle shots. I slept under a large fallen tree trunk. The point of interest is that I slept intermittently, and while awake I heard the voices of children from India, singing. The sound was sweet but otherwise unremarkable. What was remarkable is that it was a definite sound and that it was through the night.

This year, at ‘The Sinks’, a convenient place to pitch a tent, up the Canyon Creek Trail, I heard music again, when I laid down to sleep, the first night. This time however, there was music and singing. It was clear but the words were not. The music was intensely beautiful—so beautiful that I was moved to tears a number of times. I think it was for two hours or perhaps more. It was repeated again, the second night. There was music again, subsequent nights, but now rather plain.

What could it mean? There was, of course, no external source of music. But the experience was real. I have had dreams with beautiful music felt intensely, but the only other time I’ve heard music while awake was on the Long Canyon trip.

The first meaning is the experience itself. A second meaning might be that there is a capacity for beauty that is not always accessed.

Systems review

See systems review.html

For the Way of Being

Possible plan for the essential way of being

To be modified

Simple version

Academic

Preliminary

What we want (because we have choice) as motive / beginning for the way “into the way”

But it (motive) is part of discovery (as is being itself)… of course, we have a preliminary notion of these things

But this does not mean motive or being will not be discovered or known

It leads to the notion of an algebra of philosophy (metaphysics) – algebraic metaphysics

There are essentials which may be framework for a complete version

Three essential aspects

Limitlessness

Experientiality—all being is experiential

Pathways

Reading

Add to this list

Advaita Vedanta (SEP, IEP…)

Logic

Lambda Calculus

Robinson’s arithmetic

Surreal numbers

Repeated from dialetheia—inclosure schema, truth – negation – falsity, and predicate calculus; read SEP – dialetheia | paradox | Priest | other (find)

Phone as computer

How – simulation and/or evolution

Simulation

Virtual vision

Voice and keyboard

Improved interface

Satellite link

Evolution and devolution

Despite what we think of as our greatness, we (likely) have progressed beyond adequate flexibility and openness toward the ultimate and may therefore need to devolve (in any case there is no catastrophe—being will take up the torch somewhere)

Proof of existence of the void

Existence and nonexistence are equivalent existence is used with two meanings

…on the other hand, given form and formlessness (why) : in formlessness there can be no law, pattern, limit, or constraint

A fundamental question arising re: doubt about existence of the void and its proof

“We value certainty and certain proof” but is it the way to go? (1) about existence and the nature of the ultimate (2) if not then what standards should we use (e.g., optimal outcome)? Perhaps the only certain proof is analytic. But what if there is no certainty about the ultimate? Surely that would be a lack in knowledge, not a deficit of reality. If so, it would be absurd to say that there can be no certainty or certain knowledge, but only that we have not achieved it yet.

A possible introduction or part of one

Begin with the life and thought of a human being – specific vs anonymous, common, generic, typical, representative

Questions or Answers?

Both – in interaction

How to have a conversation

First, conduction and abduction, then induction and deduction

Identified speaker and audience vs round table

What do people want?

…as part of “the way in”--part of the way in as motivation

Ideologies, psychologies… so many with pre-definition and little definition

So—begin neutrally with the idea of an individual in a range of states from negative to positive in a multi-dimensional continuum

Over and above that we would factor in

Empirical, theoretical, and evolutionary psychologies

Metaphysics—proximate, ultimate

The real metaphysics (‘rmp’)

Science and the real metaphysics

Whereas science (its theories) is roughly minimal pragmatic truth consistent with and explanatory of experience at the present time (consensus), the real metaphysics is the maximal truth consistent with experience at the present time (with enhancements noted later)

Note that this characterization of the real metaphysics is its definition, which is therefore to emerge by derivation, and not a derivation itself

What is that maximal truth?

Name it an ideal defined by “logic”, then it can be shown that

§ There is a proof from the nature of being, that our logic(s) are a subset of “logic” that at least some of our logics approximate ideal

§ We sometimes conflate our logics with “logic”

§ No description of the universe can exceed logic, which follows from the definition of “logic”

§ Fairly obviously, our logics are incomplete relative to “logic” because our logics do not exhaust modes of expression and because some of them are incomplete in themselves

§ The maximum truth as “logic” is a framework of description of the universe

First enhancement—filling in the framework

This enhancement of rmp to join it to (fill it in with) what is valid in human traditions of knowledge, pragmatic or otherwise, including science. This join can be shown to be a seamless enhancement of “logic” consistent with a modified conception of pragmatic truth relative to representation

Second enhancement—perfection relative to an ultimate value ideal

As enhanced above, rmp is not perfect representation even though the unenhanced version is. But if the ultimate (which includes the immediate) is a value, enhanced rmp in process relative to this value is perfect because it is what we have and all we have and can have

Why is this a real metaphysics?

A real metaphysics is a true picture of the real, which is known directly rather than via hypothesis and deduction.

The framework is true representation and the framework with join to tradition is perfect in terms of the value ideal of the ultimate.

Why is it the real metaphysics?

The framework is ultimate and shows the universe to be ultimate (and therefore, while it is true, it cannot be exceeded by a more inclusive picture—for even contradictory descriptions are admitted as being-less objects)

The join may be exceeded as a static system but not as a dynamic or in-process system.

The argument about limitlessness

The argument that the universe is limitless applies also to all beings because every being is itself and the void; so, the ideal metaphysics might better begin at this point and by the way mention the limitlessness of the universe; the reason that a being does not see its / the limitlessness is because of its limited perception of the extensional continuum, which includes space and time, beyond birth-death-the physical body, and the blindness of reductive empiricism

Another way to say ‘limited perception of the extensional continuum’ is ‘limited horizons of perception’

Dialetheia

A book or essay? Just dialetheia? Or dialetheia and paradox?

Study inclosure schema, truth – negation – falsity, and predicate calculus.

Read SEP – dialetheia | paradox | Priest | other (find)

Issues

A dialetheia is defined as a true contradiction. In classical logic this leads to explosion; this is also called ‘trivialism’—i.e., all statements are true. So, some issues are—

1. Sources—actual and potential: paradoxes (falsidical, veridical, antinomy, contradiction-as-dialetheia), metaphorical expression of truth, suppression of distinctions leading to apparent equivalence of contraries.

2. Are there dialetheias without explosion or trivialism? Yes, and will take a non-standard logic in which a true contradiction does not lead to explosion. There are such (paraconsistent) logics and one is a logic in which there are three truth values, true, false, and both.

3. Which of the following views is or are true (i) reality is contradictory (apparently Hegel’s view) (ii) reality is not contradictory but is such that any full or sufficiently full description of it must be dialetheic (iii) #ii is not true but we must resort to dialetheic description of reality because our modes of expression are limited (iv) we often do resort to dialetheic modes (there are many instructive historical and modern examples) of description but we can overcome some or all of them with newer modes of expression or received modes that make finer distinctions than in the dialetheia (v) nonetheless, the dialetheia are useful and instructive (and what is more, the logics that may be motivated by dialetheia are useful in their own right) (vi) the dialetheia are not particularly useful or instructive (vii) the view that there are no dialetheia which has been the main received view in western philosophy since Aristotle.

Why dialetheia?

Reasons to consider and develop theories for dialetheia

Dialetheia may be real, an essential aspect of description, or inessential but useful and instructive.

Logics motivated by dialetheia may be useful in their own right. Note that a paraconsistent logic may reduce to standard logic if the cases of ‘both true and false’ are eliminated from the universe of facts of the logic.

Dialetheia as instructive paradox.

Situations where we do not know whether a proposition (or its negation) is true.

Holding two contradictory possible truths in mind when one does not know which—if either—is true may be the true way to truth… or at least an effective way (the contradictories may be both true but in different frameworks or fact universes o which we might not have been aware).

Some kinds of dialetheic situation

The following are from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/.

Transition states: when I exit the room, there is an instant between inside and outside when I am both.

Zeno’s paradox that a moving arrow is both where it is, and it is not.

Borderline cases of vague predicates, e.g., adultness, and, generally, the sorites paradoxes.

Multi-criterial predicates, e.g., 'liberal' or 'conservative’.

Inconsistent laws, especially when there is no law that resolves applicability.

New realism—In post-Kantian metaphysics, a movement sometimes ‘new realism’ is a return to realism but recognizes that mind-independent objects are or may be impossible to know and so the metaphysics would make knowledge claims that the metaphysics (seemingly) precludes.

Paradoxes of theology “an omnipotent God can create a stone that is too heavy for God to lift”.

In Heidegger’s later writing, being is both an entity and not an entity.

Examples of dialetheia

Introduction to the examples

The point to the examples and kinds is to give reasons for and against (i) so as to perhaps show that (all) dialetheias have meaning in a semantic context but may or may not be resolved into non-dialetheias by refining the context (ii) and so add to the ideas that dialetheism is a useful but not essential feature of reality and / or its description (the *may* case) or is an essential and more than just useful feature of reality and its description (the *may not* case)

Simple contradiction

It is raining and it is not raining.

True—i.e., the statement is a dialetheia—It is raining in Beijing and not raining in Mumbai.

False—the statement is not a dialetheia—It is raining at a specific place and time and not raining at the same place and time.

Note that such dialetheias are excluded from standard logic by requiring specificity of context.

Importantly, note that the resolution of the dialetheia by noting that the dialetheic case suppresses distinctions which allow the dialetheia. One question being addressed here is whether there are absolute dialetheias—ones that cannot be resolved in some manner.

Inconsistent premises

The foregoing is an example of inconsistent premises.

In classical logic, inconsistent premises lead to explosion—inconsistent premises always make an argument valid (a paradox of entailment).

Reference to a non-existent object

“The tenth major planet in our solar system is not green” and “The tenth major planet in our solar system is not not-green” are both true.

Resolution—standard logic requires all (singular) terms to denote an object in the universe of objects under consideration; however, there is no ‘tenth major planet in our solar system’

There are dialetheias and there are none

As we see below by exhaustion, whether there are or are none depends on the semantic context of the putative dialetheias. Which also holds in this case.

We are limited and limitless

As argued in the argument about limitlessness, we are limited when our horizons of perception-conception are limited, but limitless when we do not restrict the horizon.

Liar paradox

While the liar paradox is “This statement is false” it is instructive to also consider the paradox with ‘false’ replaced by (i) true (ii) true and false.

Call sentence (A) in quotes above. If true, it is false; if false, true Þ if it is either, it is both, but must it be either?

An argument for A to be a dialetheia would require that some statements (a) have no truth value or (b) have a truth value other than true or false, e.g., neutral (not the same as no truth value) or both (true and false); the latter would require a semantics and logic requiring more than two truth values.

Frege argued that “The sentence ‘It is raining’ is true” and “It is raining” have the same meaning, but that is not quite true. In the short version, that the sentence has a (classical) truth value is typically implied and inferred but in the long version it is explicitly asserted.

That is, “This statement is false”, if the typical meaning-template is assumed, means “The statement ‘This statement is false’ has a truth value and that truth value is ‘true’ ”.

But consider “This statement is true”—it is true if true and false if false but does not have to be either.

To interpret the liar paradox as dialetheic or not depends on semantic context.

Other paradoxes of self-reference

Barber paradox. If a barber shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves then he shaves himself if and only if he does not shave himself.

All Cretans are liars (another version of the liar paradox).

Grelling. If heterological means “not applicable to itself” then ‘heterological’ is heterological if and only if it is not.

Russell's paradox. The set of sets that do not contain themselves contains itself if and only if it does not.

Some paradoxes of vagueness

In the following paradoxes the dialetheia is “it is and is not the same ship” and “a heap remains and does not”.

Ship of Theseus. If a small part of a ship is replaced, it remains the same ship. Is it the same ship if all parts are replaced? If the discarded parts are then put together, it, too, is the same ship?

Sorites paradox. If one removes a single grain of sand from a heap, they still have a heap. If they keep removing single grains (i) therefore it remains a heap but (ii) eventually there will be no heap.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

In two different places.

Enlightened, yet not enlightened (enlightened and confused)

The Thomson Lamp Paradox

This is a paradox due to a British philosopher, James Thomson, in 1954 (see the little manual and dialetheia for details). A lamp is switched on at time 0, off at time 1/2, on at 3/4, off at 7/8, and so on; Thomson then asks whether the lamp is on or off at time 1). The apparent paradox is that a light that switched on and off and an infinite rate would be on and off (not on) at the same time, which is apparently paradoxical (note—here, we do not concern ourselves with the question of whether such a lamp is physically possible—we are concerned with its logical possibility). The dialetheic interpretation is that being on and off at the same time is a paradox for lamps switching on and off at a finite rate but not for an infinite rate. Now ‘on and off at the same time’ seems as though it is a logical contradiction. But it is not, for the real impossibility is for the lamp to be on and off in a single situation, but at time = 1, many distinct situations obtain at that point. The apparent paradox arises because we usually associate a single time with a single situation. But with infinite rates many situations coincide with a single time. The dialetheic nature of Thomson’s lamp depends on whether we count different situations at the same time as one situation (dialetheia) or many (non-dialetheia), which resolves the paradox and also reveals it as a dialetheia and non-dialetheia.

Note, perhaps the problem of description of many situations packed into a given time can be achieved with infinitesimals or surreal numbers.

More paradoxes—supertasks and superbeings

Ross–Littlewood paradox. After alternately adding and removing balls to a vase infinitely often, the number of balls is one and zero.

God can do anything—therefore he can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, but he can lift it.

An irresistible force can and cannot move an immovable object.

God knows in advance what a person will decide, therefore there cannot be free will, but God can bestow free will on the person.

Quine

Veridical

Falsidical

Antinomy—paradox that reaches self-contradiction by properly applying accepted standards of reasoning

Dialetheias

Ramsey

Logical

Semantic