There are other meanings and connotations of ‘Being’. The meaning just stated is one used here. It is perhaps the simplest and most neutral of meanings. It is neutral in the sense that it does not assign any kind such as matter or mind to Being. This meaning is in the development of metaphysics—knowledge of being-as-such. It is the neutrality that is the source of the potency of the metaphysics that will be developed in what follows

When terms allow a variety of meanings, inconsistency of meaning is possible and should be avoided. One way of doing this is by selecting one use and avoiding others; another way is to mark and distinguish different uses; these devices eliminate one source of inconsistency. Although there may be a best meaning, this is not always the case. Sometimes what becomes regarded as the meaning (or theory) is the one that leads to most efficient understanding of the greatest variety of contexts (phenomena)

It is not necessary to suppress special or esoteric connotations of ‘Being’. It is however essential to distinguish such connotations from the present meaning which has no special connotation

That there is Being is given. It is neither a priori nor a posteriori to Experience— Experience is Being and subject to analysis a mark of Being; and questions of Being are forms of Being

What has Being? This is the fundamental question for which we develop principles and answers but remains ever in a process of discovery and becoming

While Being is that which is there—the quality of existing—A Being is any object that has Being. (The term ‘object’ is defined later)

Being includes state and process—i.e., ‘Being’ has the characteristics of verb and noun (and adjective and property)

Note. (1) I have hitherto thought that the transtemporal sense of Being is important. I now see that the concept whose transtemporal sense is important is ‘Universe’ (Being need not be defined in a transtemporal sense; it is conveniently defined in a sense that is neutral even to trans-spatiotemporal distinctions; but ‘Universe’ is best defined trans-temporally). (2) Where I have previously used the word ‘atemporal’ to describe the Universe seen as a history, I now think that, for the Universe, ‘transtemporal’ is more appropriate than ‘atemporal’

Universe

The Universe is All Being (over all Extension and Duration)

The Universe has no Outside

That which is Outside the Universe has no Being

There is exactly One Universe (in temporal and trans-temporal senses)

There must be one Universe; there cannot be more than one

The Universe contains—is—all ‘things’ that Exist and only things that Exist—i.e. the Universe is All Being and only Being

A law is a reading of a Pattern in the Universe or part of the Universe. If it is agreed that the reading outside the relevant part of the Universe is no reading, then a law is a reading of a Pattern of the Universe

A Law is the Pattern to which the law corresponds. A Law is a Pattern of the Universe—a Pattern of Being

All Laws are in the Universe. I.e. all Laws Exist—a Law has Being or is a Being. All Laws have Being

For the Universe, possibility, actuality, and necessity are identical

The Universe has no Limits

The Principle of Being

It will be proved that the Universe has no limits. This assertion is equivalent to the assertion that Being has no limits and will be called the Principle of Being (PB)

The Principle of Being is a deep and potent principle whose meaning and significance are far from immediately evident. Aspects of its meaning will be brought out in the narrative. what follows. This begins with proof of the principle. The proof is especially important in that (1) It shows how limitlessness is essential to the Universe; (2) It gives us confidence in what would otherwise be a mere conjecture or article of faith; (3) It is occasion for development of tools of analysis that are revelatory with respect to the nature of the Universe, Understanding and their relationships; i.e. it is occasion for interactive development of Content and Method (and Logic); and (4) While the history of metaphysics and epistemology wavers between confidence and doubt, PB shows with definiteness that for Understanding-Being there is certainty and finiteness with regard to depth but openness and infinite variety with regard to variety—i.e. there is a direction of completion and a direction of ever openness

Importance of PB (1) Essentiality of limitlessness (2) Proof not belief (3) Powerful tools of analysis (4) In metaphysics directions of certainty and directions of ever openness

Proof of the Principle of Being

A Domain is a part of the Universe

The complement of a Domain is the part of the Universe not in the Domain. If a Domain Exists, its complement is a Domain and Exists. A Domain and its complement constitute the Universe

The meaning of ‘part’ used here allows that the whole is a part of itself

The Universe is a Domain

The Void is the absence of Being. Since the Universe is All Being, the Void is the complement of the Universe. So, the Void Exists and contains no Laws. If there is a state that does not emerge from the Void, that would constitute a Law of the Void. Therefore there is no such state

Here, ‘does’ is used in the trans-temporal sense of did not, does not, and will not. Note that since actuality and possibility and necessity are identical, does and can and must are identical as are does not and can not and must not

Since every state emerges from the Void, the Universe contains all states and therefore has no limits. This ends the proof of PB

The following are irrelevant distinctions: the number of Voids (provided there is at least one); the existence of the Void in the sense that it is the ‘one’ object for which existence and non-existence are the same; whether each element of Being is regarded as having a Void attached to it; whether the Void is in or outside the Universe

Some Consequences of the Principle of Being

The purpose of this section is to show the significance of principle. Systematic development of the consequences is deferred till later

Meaning of the principle

It is possible to imagine that the Universe is limited—e.g., the universe described in science has limits: it follows some laws but not others, it assumes certain forms but not others

That the Universe has no limits means that it contains every state and that the Universe is the greatest (possible) Universe

The Universe cannot be greater than it is. There is no limit to the variety, Extension, and Duration of Being in the Universe

Cosmology

The cosmos as revealed by today’s physics (big-bang, 80 billion light years across, 13 billion years old, bubble ‘universes’) is but one of an unlimited number. This cosmos is repeated without limit in extension and duration. The Laws of this cosmos are one of an unlimited range of Laws. For each system of Law there are cosmological systems without limit

The Universe enters the Void state locally as well as universally; there is continuity of information (and identity—see below) across these states

Identity

Identity is identifiable sameness over duration. Personal identity is sense of sameness of self over duration or time. It is, e.g., sense of sameness of the field of consciousness which includes degrees of connection of sense of body, environment, style of behavior, perception, reaction, thought and originality. In this document Identity refers primarily to personal identity. Conclusions follow trivially from PB

Every Being has Identity

Provided we understand that this Identity is like what we think of as our Conscious Identity only in that there is feeling, it follows from the nature of generalized matter and mind in a later section (Mind, matter, spirit, and soul) that all matter has mind and that this mind has—primal—consciousness. It might seem that this conclusion is one of two possibilities that exhaust all possibility and therefore not necessary. The unstated possibility would be that mind enters, either deterministically or indeterministically, at some degree of development or structure. However, PB requires that all matter should have at least occasional mind and that all mind should have at least occasional primal consciousness

Our consciousness is an amplified, typed, layered, focused, self/environment interacting (includes reflexive), indeterministic (therefore novelty creating and structured) form of primal consciousness

The Universe has Identity and enters and leaves states of acute Identity

The Identity of every Being is that of the Universe

That the Universe has no limits entails that except for conditions of coexistence every Being inherits this limitlessness. These conditions are constitutive of Be-ing and do not constitute limits

Death is a window to the unlimited

The Experience of Identity is an unlimited process of variety and expansion—a Journey in Being

The fact of the Journey is given. It is immensely enhanced in Appreciation and Efficiency by intelligence and application. Thinking of spirituality as wholeness and health of Being, it follows that it is not a special endeavor such as being religious, being mystic. It is or aims at the greatest knowing and becoming: knowing and becoming the Universe. While Ideas, Action and Sharing (and Communication) have been variously described as the essence of spirituality each is essential in interaction with the others

PB requires that the identity of the individual has continuities across states in which Being is not manifest. This is also given by the identity of the individual with that of the Universe. The soul is that which is continuous and preserved in the transformations of the individual and the Universe. There is one Soul and individual souls are among its elements. PB negates especial significance to the idea of soul

Power and God

Power is degree of limitlessness. God is the greatest power

From PB, God exists and is the Universe and its Power is without limit. This is perhaps the only essential proof so far in the history of Human Being of the existence and enveloping nature of God

Religion is the deployment of all agencies of Being in the knowing and becoming to All Being. Religion is a shared spiritual endeavor. It is strengthened by its cumulative insight and by the insight of individuals of special energies and talents

It has often been concluded from the spurious proof of the existence of some abstract god that some specific God exists. Such conclusions have two essential errors—the proof itself and the conclusion from abstract to concrete; such conclusions and the domination of debate by limited and corrupted notions are among the severe negative influences of many traditional religions though not of Religion as such

God (the entire Universe) is immanent in all being—in every Individual. Except conditions of coexistence, the Individual inherits unlimited power from the Universe, from God

The Normal? Necessity versus high probability

The experience of limits in our world and our lives does not contradict the limitlessness of Being and Universe. Such limits, here called Normal limits, are required by PB

Normal ‘limits’ include the forms of Being; this include Human Being. The proper laws of science also constitute Normal limits. Where Normal limits appear necessary they are merely probable. Their apparent necessity is the result of a high degree of (conditional) probability

The sources of our Human Being lie immediately in the Normal behavior of our cosmos but ultimately in the Universe and the Void as revealed in PB. Fullness of Being requires respect of the Normal and the Universal. This dual respect, initially as if breathing thin air, is a way to freedom in Being

Mediate Powers

Although the power of the entire Universe is immanent in every Being, limited Being may lack immediate access to ultimate power

Humility is often thought of as requiring aversion of gaze from ultimate power. This attitude constitutes a form of knowledge of that power; however, knowledge itself requires neutral commitment at outset. Humility includes this attitude, respect for the process of knowing and respect for the Normal

Mediate Power is a Normal means of access to the supra-Normal and to the Ultimate

If Ego is seen as limited then the Mediate Powers include the whole self including ‘spirit’, nature, other Individuals and Tradition, Community, Communication, and Ideas. Experience and knowledge of Mediate Power is ever in process

Relation to Science and Experience

It may seem that PB and its consequences violate science and common experience. However, the valid results of science and valid common experience are required by the principle. There is no contradiction

It is useful to further explain this non-contradiction. Science and common experience illuminate what is there; where they are silent there is no implication that imply that there is nothing (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). It is commonly thought that since science has penetrated the very large and very small to such a great degree that little remains outside its realm. However, science is silent about its edge and the size of the domain beyond. Science allows that this domain may range from the negligible to the unlimited. PB shows that this domain is without limit

Journey in Being

What is this way? Human kind has nurtured a variety of approaches from the earliest times to the present. The unlimited variety of Being shows that any approach that has not built into PB must be supplemented by experiment in thought and action. In any case full realization is without end and requires Ideas and transformation of Being

Logic

One of the functions of this section shall be to use Logic is to translate the implicit formulation of PB to an explicit ‘calculable’ version

Normal limits are not true limits; they are probabilities. Another kind of apparent limit is due to the impossibility of true contradiction. E.g. given that green and not-green are exclusive it follows that an apple cannot be wholly green and not-green at the same time. This is not a limit on Being. Rather, our ability to form concepts is the result of freedom of image or concept formation. One way of making a concept specific is by exclusion and it is possible to exclude so much that all possibility is excluded and an example of this is the contradiction

More generally, the freedom of concept formation includes the semantic and the syntactic. An example of a semantic freedom is contained in the statement ‘The Universe moved a finite distance’. Since moving requires a framework, the statement is without meaning and therefore without realization. An example of a concept that is without realization for syntactic reasons is ‘An apple that is green and not green’

Such ‘limits’ are not limits on Being because they do not describe any Being and therefore contain no limits to Being

The kind of limit under discussion is logical. We think of logic as inference. However, the connection between the traditional idea of logic and the present one is clear. Given two concepts, their simultaneous formulation may result an unrealizable concept and therefore a connection between the concepts; implication is such a connection

Since logics have imperfection, conceive Logic as the limits on referential concepts necessary for realization

This novel conception of Logic is the result of and possible on account of PB

Another limit on reference is the fact—but as seen immediately this is a Logical limit—but as seen immediately this is a Logical limit. If a Being or fact is given, it goes against Logic to contradict the fact. The unlimited freedom of Being or Universe does not extend to contradiction to or exemption to facts

The logics concern truth functional and perhaps other, e.g. semantic and co-existential and factual, aspects of reference and are approximations to Logic

The ‘limits’ of Logic are not limits of Being; they are requirements that concepts must satisfy in order to have reference

Creativity

Subject to minimal constraints of realism—those of Logic—the entire concept of referential form has reference

It is perhaps an approximation to disjoin the ‘entire concept of referential form’ to ‘systems of concepts of referential form’

Given minimal realism, every science, every piece of art or literature or religion or music has reference. In the case of music and abstract art, reference must be at least implicit or assigned. Given realism, the outpourings of mind are real

This defines a project in knowing and being. It is a project whose dimensions are immense in regard to variety and articulation

Logos

LOGOS or The Logos is the object or reference of Logic. Logos is the Universe in all detail

On Proof, Demonstration, and Interpretation

The narrative develops many results whose foundation is PB. Specific exploration within Logic may be difficult. However, many of the proofs based on PB is not difficult

PB requires no premise: it starts from a given—i.e., the fact of Being. Therefore many ‘proofs’ are more than proof from premises. Where the premises are founded in givens, proof may be called ‘demonstration’

Where demonstration is transparent details need not be given: a reference to PB will be sufficient. After this style of demonstration has been established, reference to the principle may be tacit

Even where demonstration is transparent, development requires imagination and non-trivial interpretation that is often suggested by knowledge of and within our cosmos. Such knowledge includes science and common experience

Many demonstrations from PB are transparent. The principle itself and its present form appear transparent. However, in its origin the principle and its demonstration were far from transparent

The formulation of the present principle and its demonstration are the result of insight, of honing of proof and meaning, of seeking consequence and contradiction and resolving apparent contradiction. The process required careful thought about the nature of Being—the quality of its given-ness—and an articulated system of concepts that includes The Void, Domain, Complement, and Universe. It required careful selection of an articulated system of meanings (and the counterintuitive exclusion of a host of common meanings). That work required persistence, imagination, and careful thought

Metaphysics and Epistemology

Metaphysics is perfect knowledge of Being as Being and aspects of Being

This conception is close to the traditional meaning(s) of metaphysics in philosophy. (Metaphysics has other uses that are not especially pertinent to this development.) Metaphysics would seem to be limited; however we have begun to seen it as immensely extensive. Further the sense of Metaphysics will be extended to all proper knowledge—and a meaning of ‘proper knowledge’ will emerge

The possibility of metaphysics has been criticized especially since Kant’s critique. There are some critics who argue that knowledge is impossible altogether (their claim would be knowledge) and those who argue more reasonably that perfect knowledge is impossible (but to be meaningful that claim would be perfect knowledge)

Here it has been seen already that there is Being. This is perfect knowledge—an example of metaphysical knowledge. Also, there is precisely one Universe. This knowledge appears to be trivial but is not. Already, consequences of immense depth and significance have been seen

Clearly metaphysics is possible. Further, there can be at most one metaphysics of any realm of Being. For the Universe itself there is at most one Metaphysics that can of course have more than one form (and degree of detail). It has been seen that this Metaphysics is possible

There is precisely one Universal Metaphysics (it may be written in different forms and developed to different degrees of detail)

Epistemology is the study of the nature and value of knowledge and of the meaning of and conditions for the validity of knowledge (the meaning and conditions are of course aspects of the nature of knowledge)

Metaphysics and Epistemology have often been regarded as separate and distinct. At the time of the Greeks, metaphysics was treated with greater importance. Since Kant, epistemology has been ascendant. However, it is seen that they are inseparable—and that their greatest power, resolution and simplicity occur when this is seen. Their original join occurs at the place of the analysis of the meaning of ‘Being’

It is implicit so far that knowledge of Being-as-Being (that there is Being), Universe (All Being as All Being), Domain, Void, The Principle of Being, The Normal, Logic, and Logos is Perfect

General and Special Metaphysics

Because this knowledge is Universal, it characterizes General Metaphysics. It is perfect via abstraction that omits detail capable of distortion

Abstraction may also lead to abstracted aspects more special and commonly approximate (distorted and where the nature of knowledge itself is not clear) knowledge. Examples are aspects of mind, of matter, and of mind-matter relations; aspects of extension and duration of Being—of space-time-Being; of manifest and Void states—the fact thereof; and aspects of Identity, God, spirit, and soul which are made trivial in an epistemic sense but not in the sense of significance. Such knowledge may be called Special Metaphysics (Kant has mentioned the idea)

The General Metaphysics is universal; Special Metaphysics is universal in that it has clear application in all sufficiently developed locales but may lack relevance elsewhere

Together, the General and Special Metaphysics constitute pure metaphysics which is metaphysics as understood so far

Applied Metaphysics

Common knowledge includes common perception, culture, tradition, and science. Such knowledge is rarely perfect; even the notion of ‘object’ is vague in the general case (in metaphysics, the notion of the object is clear as a result of abstraction)

However, common knowledge has some degree of net local validity via adaptation and use (including experiment and reason) and includes science; such knowledge may have the following modes of perfection: epistemic perfection as in the case of pure metaphysics; reaching the limit of epistemic knowability for a context; and simply good enough in a value sense. In a strict value sense knowledge at the limit of a context may be called perfect. In a more relaxed sense good enough is perfect

Applied Metaphysics is good enough knowledge. From a perspective of epistemic purism, Applied Metaphysics has degrees of perfection. From a relaxed ‘good enough’ perspective, Applied Metaphysics is perfect

Universal Metaphysics

Universal Metaphysics is knowledge of All Being that is available to every Being

…knowledge of every where and when that can be had any where and when

It has been seen that the claim is not to knowledge of every detail of All Being but to some contours of that knowledge. We have seen that the degree of contour is significant, especially if knowledge is not required to be direct. It has been seen by demonstration that this knowledge is available to every Human Being. Two questions arise—(1) What degree of contouring is available? Tentative answers will be developed. (2) How is this knowledge available to every Being? It is available at least in the sense that every Being is equivalent to All Being and thus knowledge that is available to any Being is available to all Beings

There is precisely one Universal Metaphysics (in saying this, variant forms and development to different degrees of detail do not count as variant metaphysics)

Appropriately interpreted, this includes Applied Metaphysics in its broadest sense. However, I do not press this interpretation. Pure Metaphysics is metaphysics enough in that it shows a Universe of variety without limit and in that every piece of the Universe finds a place in the Metaphysical (real) realm: it is there even if we have not located it (here ‘is’ has been used in an atemporal sense)

Self-driven Character of the Universal Metaphysics

The Universal Metaphysics is self-driven. That means that it is not based in assumption. Consider, for example, that There is Being. This is given. It is unlike the assertion: There is matter (in the conventional sense of matter). The givenness of the Universal Metaphysics may be taken to part of the system or, equivalently, to reside in Being—e.g. the Being of the individual

There is Being—this is not a tautology but a naming of a given

Ultimate Character of the Universal Metaphysics

It is internally founded (self-driven) and requires no further foundation

It is proven without assumption

The substance of the Universe is found to lie in the assertion that all states of Being are equivalent. The substance could be taken to be the Void but this would not be classically determinate substance that yields all manifestations; there is no classical substance. The Universal Metaphysics is therefore ultimate with regard to depth

It is implicitly ultimate with regard to breadth: it is implicitly generative of all Being and it shows Being to be without limit

Meanings

The various concepts have definite meanings in the system. I.e. while every concept has or may have many meanings and shades of meaning in common use, the meanings used here are as defined and introduced. Arriving at the system required a process

The system of concepts form a hierarchy (meanings are nested) and a field (interrelated). Meaning lies in the whole

Uniqueness

There is one Universal Metaphysics that may of course have alternate forms and vary with regard to detail of development

Trivial / profound character

Once arrived at the Universal Metaphysics is trivial

However, arriving at it was not trivial

And its consequences are manifold and deep

Its strength is derived in interaction with thought, experience, culture…

Developing the Universal Metaphysics

I was fortunate to have a sufficient amounts, interactions, and balances of attachment and detachment

Relation to All Prior Metaphysics

The Universal Metaphysics frames or excludes all prior metaphysics

Where prior metaphysics was posited, the Universal Metaphysics emerged. Where the positing was reasonable, the emergence has been necessary

Absolute Character

The Universal Metaphysic shatters the sometime modern myth of absolute relativism

And it shatters the myth of no non-relative metaphysics without axiom or substance

Open Character

The Universal Metaphysics remains open in the directions of breadth, variety, experience, and journey

It reveals directions (depth) of final closedness; and directions of ever openness

The Universal Metaphysics as a Framework

The Universal Metaphysics forms a framework for

u All prior metaphysics (noted above)

u Science (quantum theory via the Void and the mix of indeterminism and structure; relativity in its self-containment with regard to space, time, and being; evolutionary theory in its mix of indeterminism and structure

u Theology

u The human endeavor; my life

An Existential Question

Given that we have strong reason to believe UM to be true but do not know it to be true (or false), is there / what is the correct attitude / behavior in normal and universal life?

Objects

The foregoing constitutes a first epistemology and theory of objects—it shows ways in which we know things as things

The word ‘thing’ need not be interpreted as things that are referred to by nouns but may include processes and interactions. Although a first paradigm of a thing is a concrete thing, we may expand the idea to process and interaction as well as ethereal thing. All these are included under the idea of object so far. An object is what is described in the metaphysics so far (pure / applied according to the reader’s preference)

Abstract and Concrete Objects

Completes metaphysics and epistemology

PB reveals a second level: the objects labeled abstract

While we think of a brick or a river as concrete, the number one does not seem concrete. What is the number ‘one’? In the first place it is a concept. The foregoing statement is not quite correct. Initially there may have been ideas such as one-thing and two-things in which the oneness and two-ness were not separated from thing-hood. Whether this is in fact one historical line of evolution of the idea of number is not pertinent. What is clear is that numbers have an empirical side but later became concepts

Is a number an object? What does that mean? It means: is there an object to which a number refers! A modern consensus is that numbers are objects even though they do not seem to be concrete. There is something apparently unworldly about numbers. Numbers have come to be regarded as abstract objects. Other examples of abstract objects are classes, propositions, and values

The question of the nature of abstract objects is unsettled in modern thought. Are they actually things or are they but concepts or are they mental things or do they perhaps reside in some abstract or ideal universe or universes? Do they reside in time or space? The latter question arises because a number, for example, does not seem to be anywhere in time

We have seen that there is precisely one Universe. It is only when the idea of ‘universe’ is allowed have vagueness that we can even think that there might be more than one (in the sense that illogical objects cannot be thought)

PB implies that a concept that remain within the bound of Logic must have an object and that object must therefore be in this the only Universe. An abstract object, then, is an object that is the object of an abstract concept. A number of objections arise. If an abstract object lives in this Universe, how is it abstract? The answer is that there is no essential distinction between abstract and concrete. Rather an object becomes thought of as concrete when it is known via the senses; an object becomes thought of as abstract when it is not known via the senses but is conceptualized—i.e. known purely by concept (in the sense where concept is contrasted from percept). Returning to the example of number, it is likely that the idea originally had a strongly empirical nature and later became conceptual (in mathematics). Recently some aspects of number theory are addressed by counting on a computer and thus there is a return to the empirical side of number. We see that an idea may have abstract and concrete phases and, although no example has been given yet, there seems to be no reason that an object could have both concrete and abstract aspects: many objects of science seem to be abstract-concrete

Another objection to the present conception of the nature of the abstract is that numbers do not appear to exist in time. The resolution is that number does exist in time but that temporality is irrelevant to the character of number

Concrete, Particular, Abstract, and Mixed Objects. Lack of Essential Distinction

We may thus say that the distinction between the abstract and the concrete is a matter of approach rather than real. It is epistemic rather than metaphysical. An abstract object is one that is studied via pure concepts (concepts as distinct from percepts). A concrete object is one that is known via the senses or percepts; it is studied empirically. The notion of mixed object should now present no problem. It has been seen that non-concrete things such as interactions and rivers are concrete objects. While abstract objects are often definable in terms of collections of things (collections are things), concrete objects typically refer to particular things. I have therefore regarded the concrete object and the particular object to be the same but while there is intersection among concrete and particular objects they do not now seem to be identical in nature

We have seen that the concrete includes the idea of thing, process, and interaction. On the other hand a property, e.g. redness, is abstract (it is an abstract object that is sometimes called a universal). However, redness is a concept and therefore has an object. What is that object? In the first place, the redness of a particular object may be seen as an interaction between a knower and known and therefore as a particular object (it is actually the result of the interaction in the knower). Redness may therefore be seen as the collection of all instances of redness. But the collection of instances is an object and thus redness is also particular. This also follows ‘abstractly’ from PB. Generally, PB implies that all ‘abstract’ objects are also concrete

A trope, e.g. the redness of that red ball, is a particular object (as seen above). However, any concrete object may be regarded conceptually and therefore trivially as abstract

Tropes and properties are not seen as mixed objects because their particular versus abstract character depends on the perspective that is adopted; however they could be seen as abstract. Number may be seen as mixed when it is studied conceptually-symbolically in interaction with empirical study (and it is probably not difficult to see that there are perspectives—perhaps only trivial ones in the case of tropes—in which properties and tropes are mixed)

Any object can be seen as concrete, abstract, or mixed

There is One Universe and All Objects are in It

In conclusion we may say that all objects lie in this, the one Universe; all objects have the possibility of temporality and causality but temporality andor spatiality andor causality may be irrelevant to the character of some objects; and that there are no such things as mental objects or ideal objects that live in mental or ideal universes or in some kind of limbo (there are no mental or physical or ideal universes: there is but the one Universe) but that concepts and percepts may be regarded are actual objects and could be thought of as objects—in brains or, more generally, in bodies—with a mental character

Substance

Determinism and Indeterminism

If system’s state at any time determines its state at later times the system / process is called deterministic. Otherwise the system / process is indeterministic

There is No Substance

From PB every state is equivalent to every to the Void and so to every other state. Therefore there is no need for substance. However, the equivalences are indeterministic and therefore there is and can be no classical substance—i.e., one that generates the entire Universe—or part or object thereof—deterministically from its uniform and unchanging self. If the classical but usually implicit requirement of determinism for substance is relaxed the Void (or any state) could be regarded as substance but this would lack conceptual and practical utility

Substance and the Normal

A Normal Domain is one conceived as obeying Normal limits

In such domains there are objects that may be as-if substance

Cosmology. Domain and Cosmos

Absolute Indeterminism and Structured Domains

An eternally static domain would reflect a law of the Void. Therefore, from PB every domain has (must have) process. Given a domain in one state the state at a different process parameter (time, local time) can be any state of the Universe including structured states—it is only in the Normal case that the second state is determined by necessity or probability. Thus there are no static or deterministic domains even though there may be as-if and temporary stasis and determinism

The kind of indeterminism in which the outcome is any state is called absolute indeterminism

Absolute indeterminism is required by PB. Absolute indeterminism—the term seems to imply something like eternal chaos. However it does not. It requires all kinds of system—those that appear to support nothing but mere chaos and those that have structure. All structures are required. In the sense that, given a beginning state, no state is ruled out later absolute indeterminism is indeterminism indeed. In that every state is required it is very much like our notions of determinism

We often think that pure determinism is the way of form and structure. However, the case of determinism is that given structure there is structure. Indeterminism allows the origin of structure from non-structure and then falling back into non-structure and so on. Absolute indeterminism necessarily includes (allows and requires) the never ending origin and decay of structure

Relation to Theoretical Physics

In various ways the relationship between generic determinism and absolute indeterminism is like the relation between classical and quantum physics. In each case the structure is very special in the former but natural and required in the latter. In each case, the latter may suggest chaotic process but is the root of structure and of transition from structure to structure

Cosmos

A cosmological system or cosmos is a relatively stable localized domain. PB requires the existence of such systems—with and without mechanism

Normal mechanism

It is expected from reason and analogy (with modern physical cosmology and evolutionary biology) that a cosmos or stable domain be in a state of near symmetry that is the result of self-adaptive process (more generally the interaction with other domains may allow structure with deviation from near symmetry and stability… and adaptation is to self and environment) or indeterministic process that arises from some base state (including the Void)

Thus in the normal case a cosmos is a localized domain that is relatively stable and near symmetric as a result of its conditions of existence—of Being and Becoming

PB requires that there will be cosmological systems and that they will be of finite duration (an infinite duration would constitute a Law in the Void)

Cosmological Variety and Phenomena

Illustration of variety: recurrence, ghosts, religious cosmologies

PB requires that all physical (like) Laws that lie within the bounds of Logic are realized; and for every physical Law the existence of every domain consistent with that Law—such domains may be relatively stable, with ‘interesting’ structure—cosmological systems—or relatively transient. Each domain, cosmological systems included, is repeated without limit and the repetitions are with and without variation; a cosmos is subject to dissolution at any time and to resurrection which dissolutions and resurrections are not necessarily Normal (and the meaning of ‘resurrection’ is guaranteed by the idea of Identity which has been seen to follow from PB); for any cosmos including ours there are annihilator and ghost systems; a ghost cosmos is one passing through another, host cosmos, with interaction that evades Normal detection (no interaction would be a Law in the Void) or is already woven into (the Laws of) the host; given a concept of a sub-state, e.g. a configuration or an individual, of a cosmos then the sub-state exists somewhere in the universe and repeats without limit but not at all necessarily in the cosmos—e.g. the religious, mythic, literary, and implicit art-form cosmologies; these phenomena intermix with a transient background

The foregoing phenomena are individually and jointly subject to Logic. They are, we may say, WBL: within the bounds of Logic

Space-Time-Being

That the Universe is All Being implies that any universal space and time is and must be relative but space and time may and must occasionally be locally as-if absolute

Generally there is no uniform or continuous space and time; there are patches with degrees of structure, e.g. metric structure; dimensionality of space is not given; all as-if atoms have structure: every cosmos is an atom, every atom a cosmos; every domain is a time bearing entity with multiple modes of time or process; times may be coordinated, e.g. by conditions of manifestation, and a cosmos may have one or more normally coordinate time that may be arranged in a hierarchy of dominance: a cosmos may have one or a few dominant times and many lesser times; and correspondingly there may be many immanent speeds of signal propagation. Considerations starting with Leibnizian Monadology and the idea of Logic as realism suggest rich lines of investigation for cosmology and for the science of material interaction-change (force-motion: physics)—of space, time, Being

PB requires transformation of information through (across) the Void. This suggests a richness of implication for Logic and the nature of the Void

Cosmology—God and Creation

Note. This section repeats some ideas from Power and God

God is defined to be the greatest creative power; gods are great powers; God is a god

As All Being, the Universe is the greatest power; it contains all creation and all power

As the greatest power, God and Universe are identical. God is the Universe (or abstraction thereof). The existence of God / Universe is given and their identification has no especial significance for the nature of God except that it gives no support to the ‘Gods’ of imagination, art, myth, religion, and theology. However, WBL, PB implies the existence of these ‘Gods’ as special gods. The bounds or Logic are maintained—e.g., there is no original or external creator of the Universe: manifestation from the Void is what it is but it is no causal-creation; and one domain or god may / occasionally will and must / be implicated in the creation / support / dissolution of another domain / god / or individual

From considerations of conditions of manifestation and reflection on origins within our world, the more general or organic interpretations of gods / becoming (great immanent creative power rather than god-in-the-image-of-man-and-his-symbols) may be so much more frequent / stable / near symmetric as to make the mythic / specific / anthropic theological cosmologies normally negligible (but the symbolic content of the theological cosmologies may be significant even when their literal content is not)

Individual power. Transformation

Note. This section repeats some ideas from Mediate Powers

In the Normal case individual power is limited: I am a small part of the cosmos that is infinitesimal in relation to the Universe. From PB the individual will become All elements of Being including the Universe. Toward that end the individual may choose to explore engaging the power of All Being—the entire Universe. What are some ways? First, engaging more immediate, accessible power as incremental and general leverage in realization of the ultimate. Such powers may be called intermediate or mediate powers. Examples of mediate powers are individuals, society, culture including traditional means and religion and the ideal (spirituality), science, technology, imagination, cumulative and ongoing learning, appeal to individuals with charisma andor special capabilities and insight. Second in the ways of realization are the direct and explicit including mystic focus on engagement with the ultimate. Traditional catalytic means such as vision quest with and without systematic explanation may intend to combine the mediate and the direct. A Dynamics of Being, an approach based on PB, integrates the mediate and the ultimate. Approaches that give transformation that is not clearly predictable, not clearly understood, and not clearly reversible may be called discrete. Approaches that are predictable, understood and permanent or reversible according to choices are continuous. The continuous emphasize, first, the incremental, the rational but need imaginative supplement; the discrete emphasize imagination, creative power, and risk. The way is a combination of the discrete and the continuous

There are traditions that, wanting to avoid reference to the gods of religion and myth, speak of Higher Power or Greater Power. These powers may be identified with the mediate andor ultimate powers

Mind, matter, spirit, and soul

Regard matter as first order Being—simple Being in itself. This notion of matter is approximated by our senses and sciences but is not the matter of sense and science. Regard mind as second order Being, interaction, the signature of first in first order Being

Then in a given cosmos there may be many modes of Being—i.e., of matter and therefore many modes of mind

Since there is no ultimate atom of cosmos, the Normally valid mind-matter distinction is ultimately moot

Matter-matter interactions will include the normal as well as ghost interactions. An example of a ghost interaction is among two modes of matter: MATTER₁-MATTER₂; the MATTER₁-MATTER₂ distinction is Normal, not ultimate. Similarly, substance is Normal but not ultimate

Mind-matter interactions include normal and ghost perception and conception

Mind-mind interactions include recognition of the other (Normal), and spirit (aspects of self; aspects of other—including the extra-Normal: gods, Beings from other realms/domains which include those realms/domains)

Spirit is a system of relations within soul (defined earlier). PB shows the ideas of soul and spirit to be useful but unnecessary

Working the imaginative Logic of these relations suggests a project of immense imaginative, experimental, experiential-becoming, and mystic discovery

These thoughts show that literal meaning is possible and essential regarding ultimates; metaphor and symbol are of course significant in direct and human-human expression and communication of ultimates. Metaphor and symbol are essential where the literal would obscure the real and useful where mind is normally limited

Cosmology. Universe, Cosmos, Individual, and Identity

Concept of an Individual

An organism with relatively stable psyche and self-identity via adaptation within a cosmos—and via free conception to aspects of the Universe (e.g., as in the present development)

Identity and Soul

In general, objects present degrees of persistence over time as do individuals-in-their-sense-of-self (for precisely this is an aspect of the nature of ‘object’ and possession of object-hood is precisely in the nature of the individual)

Identity which includes attributes concerns a sense of persisting sameness over time

PB rules out the case of eternal Identity but also requires eternal and universal if occasional and patchwork connections among identities

Thus ‘strong’ Identity is a sense of persisting sameness over a finite interval of time. However there is no limit to the magnitude of this interval and therefore even Normal Identity may seem as if permanent. The concept of Identity is inherent in the concept of the object

PB requires (1) eternal though not continuous persistence of identity (soul) which as persistence of information does not constitute a Law of the Void, (2) realization of individual Identity as Ultimate Identity

Realization of the Organic, the Artificial, and the Abstract

Organic states are exemplified by those realized via a connect history of near or sufficiently perfect adaptation (becoming). Realization of these states is necessary (PB) and robust (via mechanism); it is not necessary but merely likely that such states are realized via mechanism

Generally, realization of non-robust and non-organic artificial yet structured states is unlikely except via design by (organic) organisms. However, the origin of such states may be spontaneous (or labored) even if unlikely. Such states may have significance to organic Being via interaction and as myth and as fiction

The meaning of the realization of abstract states is not clear—e.g., what does it mean to realize the number one or to realize the form of another individual but the search for this meaning and the fact of realization may have significance

Value

A Normal Meaning of Value

One aspect of value is propensity to preserve or conception that tends to preserve states of adaptation or enjoyment of adaptation

This suggests a meaning to value

However, no adaptation to self or environment is eternal. So, this meaning of value is Normal and necessarily self-limited

The assumption of value under this meaning is limiting to individual, group, and culture

The organism has an inherent source and sense of value—e.g. preservation of self, kin, and group. This ‘sense’ may be expressed in organic andor social behavior

To the organism and group this value is core

What is core to the organism and the group is not universal nor is it key to Universal Identity. Still, sufficient respect of core value may be necessary as preliminary to entry into a process of universalizing

In the case of an organism capable of belief and reason, inherent value of the above type may be expressed in belief and via reason

Tradition, experience, and reflection—imaginative and critical—are sources of Normal value

Universal Value

A more complete meaning of value includes valuation of other states of self-adaptation and even transience. Such states include realizations of various degrees of Identity (on a diffuse-structured continuum) by identity

They include ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ states. They include the elemental and the universal

Some conclusions

We conclude the following. (1) Not all Normal value is absolute (or vice-versa). There may be conflict between the absolute or universal and the Normal—rather as there are conflicts of value among cultures, sub-cultures, and individuals. (2) Relative to the Normal, the ultimate value is (wide) open. (3) Realization of Universal Identity is necessity (by PB) and therefore attention to this process, its efficiency and enjoyment, may be taken to be one universal value

Sources of Value

Sources of value include organism, tradition, experience, imagination, and reason. Taking singly or jointly, these do not yield general unitary and eternal value

Per PB, if they do not against the background of the Universe they cannot (against the background of the Universe possibility is actuality, non-actuality is impossibility). And if they do / can not they should not. There is a universal sense (i.e., a sense in a universal setting) that ‘is’, ‘can’, and ‘should’ are identical

Experiment in transformation of Being (becoming) is a further source of value

All these in mutual interaction and in interaction with / interpreted via PB constitute sources of value

Journey

The Limitless Universe: Review

The Universe is without limit. It’s variety and quantity of Being, its extension and duration have no limit. WBL every actual domain or individual is repeated without limit. Except conditions of coexistence, domains and individuals inherit the limitlessness of the Universe. The Normal case has goes beyond the bounds of Logic in its limits; however these limits are not necessary: they may be regarded as probable. The Normally impossible is but highly improbable; the Normally necessary is but highly probable; and these probabilities are such as to give appearances of impossibility or necessity

Our cosmological system—known by empirical means and conservative conceptual extrapolation—has severe Normal limits but awe inspiring beauty and variety. We may say that the quality of its beauty defines the ideas of awe and wonder: the ideas of awe, beauty, and wonder are aspects of adaptation. We have seen some elements of the Universe that is greater without limit…and some conceptual and existential aspects of how to make further discovery of the variety, extension, and duration

The narrative employs the idea of limitlessness rather than infinity. This is because the idea of infinity suggests something positive in nature, especially to those familiar with the mathematical infinities that originated with Georg Cantor. However, the idea of limitlessness includes all actual or Logical infinities but requires no reference to infinity

Destiny of Man

What is the destiny of a limited and perhaps finite (human) Being in relation to this limitlessness? The individual will know and become the limitless. This must occur and this is given by PB. However, PB does not show how to make the process efficient (most ambitiously, to bring it within Normal reach) or how to appreciate it

Ideas, experience, and experiment are keys to appreciation and efficiency. Appreciation is a form of idea and is enhanced by the feeling side of ideas. In heightening appreciation there is return to integral forms of emotion-cognition in action. There is a magic of ideas—magic in that turn if idea , that insight, that reveals a universe in a thought. The Idea is essential to appreciation. Appreciation is a form of Idea

Efficiency is enhanced by imagination, reason, intelligent application, experiment in thought and transformation of Being—by that magic that is open, is not hidden, and which reveals truth in its simple and great—perhaps simplest and greatest—forms. Efficiency is magical leverage

The Journey

For a finite Being, knowing—revelation of the Universe—is a process without end… as is the Becoming whose end is All Being

Knowledge—as in the Universal Metaphysics—is absolute and complete in the direction of depth or foundation: Every state of Being is equivalent to every other state

However, variety and extension and duration of Knowledge and Becoming are and must remain ever open for a finite Being

The path to Knowledge and Being of the Ultimate is an ever open Journey—an adventure without end. There is and must be pain which is neither avoided nor sought. However, given pain may be a source of learning and transformation. We may be open to transformative crisis without seeking it. Therefore, every transformative crisis will be as if a new dawn

Endless vistas of Knowledge and Becoming are as if encountering some ever new, ever exotic, ever beautiful vista on some strange continent of some strange planet

Discovery is not merely as if physical discovery of some conceptually given but physically remote object. There are as yet concepts unnamed. And even the named concepts—in the Universal case—are not given in form; nor do they refer to some definite object. We discover the concept as we discover the thing. The search is a dual search in the possibilities of concept formation and actual space. Perhaps as in the dreams of computer science discovery of the unknown is no more difficult than verification of what we may have been shown but this is far from being known to be the case in metaphysics. The phrases ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ are near meaningless in their common literal interpretations—i.e., where definite answers are obvious they lack Universal significance and where there may be Universal significance there are no definite answers. The question ‘What is God?’ is in fact an occasion for endless discovery in conceptual and material domains

Particular examples from theology and philosophy of religion are pertinent, not as exemplars, but because the bizarre and barren anthropomorphic and this-cosmomorphic concreteness of the received traditions obtund and mislead the imagination and so believer and non-believer alike reflect in the image of the idols while remaining aware of the unseen and unlimited. (Symbolic significance of the idol is not here in dispute.) The non-believer explicitly rejects the idol and so implicitly rejects the unlimited; the believer explicitly accepts the idol and so remains in ignorance of even the possibility of the unlimited

The example is also pertinent because many concepts are appropriately concrete in Normal contexts of meaning but too rigid investment in particularity and concreteness of meaning is a barrier to the fluidity of meaning needed for and encouragement of meanings adequate to changing, novel, and universal contexts

Experience of and becoming the ultimate are an endless journey for a finite Being. However, novelty does not become exhausted nor does it ‘wear off.’ Even though novelty tends to wear off—even the novelty of novelty—the actual novelty and its production of the sense of novelty are without limit… and, of course, there is always respite from endeavor and enjoyment of the moment—of the context at hand. The variety is endless: there are summits, plateaus, and dissolutions. The summits are unlimited in variety and elevation. The process includes but is not limited to idea and external transformation. It is also one of participation and immersion

Science, Religion, Journey

In the Normal case, science is factual knowledge in a finite domain. For physics, this is equivalent to the idea that the theories of physics fit the known data (except perhaps for anomalies) but that as universal theories they are hypothetical

The symbols of religion relate the individual to a vision of the ultimate that is often though not invariably stunted. These visions may be held as dogma

In the ultimate, science as knowing and religion as relationship must merge in a Journey of participation and immersion on the way to the ultimate

Doubt

This version of Journey in Being has not emphasized doubt

Doubt—received and active-imaginative—have been instrumental in the development and refinement. Doubt is a spur to refinement which also seeks to address doubt

However, doubt remains. The main doubt regarding the metaphysics is that it is not clear that the complement of the Universe exists. I.e., the existence of the Void (pivotal in the development) has been given alternate proofs and plausibility arguments but doubt remains

Faith

We may therefore treat the Principle of Being as a reasonable hypothesis. There are arguments in its favor and even if it has not been proven it has not been shown false. It is doubtful that it can be shown false. The principle violates neither Logical nor physical principle. It may of course appear to violate physical principle and common experience but this is only on misinterpretation of science and the nature of experience

Thus the Universal Metaphysics may be regarded as Logically sound, reasonable, but still hypothetical. In some ways this is preferable to certainty. This openness adds to the existential character of the Journey. Embarking upon the Journey involves risk

Then: Faith is not absurd belief but the attitude that maximizes appreciation and outcome of the Journey in Being