Karma and other ideas have a variety of interpretations. The literal interpretation has been demonstrated in the cosmology. It could be argued that the mythological and psychological interpretations are more important and that the literal interpretation is merely factual and trivial

The secular psychological interpretation of karma is that by certain acts or attitudes or way of living, one becomes trapped in the psychological and material consequences…

However, the literal interpretation has another psychological significance that is less or more important than the secular one only on certain viewpoints. The attitude here is that both have significance, neither is inessential, and the thought that one or other is more important does not have much meaning

The mythological significance of a story is that of the social and psychological significance of the common stories or legends—the mythology—of a society. If there is also literal truth that may only enhance significance, first, because the domain of the literal has its own significance for psychology and identity and, second, because of its significance for secular psychology

On the literal and metaphorical

The developments of the metaphysics of immanence and its consequences show that the distinction between the metaphorical and the literal breaks down when the universe is seen as it is—when vision is aligned with being. In other words, in the realm of metaphysics, cosmology and identity, the metaphorical points indirectly to the truth and its utility is a consequence of an intuition of the truth that has not fully entered the light of consciousness

These thoughts do not imply that metaphor loses its poetic and suggestive power…

Material from Journey in Being-New World-essence.html

Cosmology

What is cosmology?

Cosmology is the study of the variety of being

Cosmology is the study of the variety of being. Since concepts are naturally employed, cosmology may be said to be the theory of variety. Of course, theory, as noted in Logic and meaning, is not essentially distinct from fact and does not exclude empirical elements

Cosmology includes the study of the variety of process

Since process is an aspect of being cosmology includes the study or theory of processes. In the global perspective, process is implicit in variety

Process includes behavior or dynamics as well as longer term change including origins, evolutions, and ends. In science, dynamics and origins may be distinguished; however, there is arbitrariness to the distinction. Still, since a unitary science has not been achieved the distinction is practically important

The meaning of the term Universe in this narrative—a reminder

In this narrative ‘universe’ refers to all being. To emphasize the distinction from other uses, the symbol ‘Universe’ may be used instead of ‘universe’

To further emphasize the distinction, the domain validly described by modern physical science may be designated the or this cosmological system or, simply, the cosmos

The spatiotemporal extent of domain for which modern physical science is known to be valid according to its own criteria is a minute fraction of the extent of the Universe

Is everything that can be said about cosmology said in science? Modern physical cosmology defines its own limits and is silent about the domain outside these limits. The theory of being, specifically the metaphysics of immanence, shows that there is an infinitely larger universe outside these limits and that that universe is larger with respect to extension, duration and variety. Modern physical cosmology uses the term ‘universe’ to describe its universe. According to that use the size, age and variety of ‘the universe’ has changed drastically over human history; in fact, over that period it is knowledge that has changed: the changes in the net structure of the cosmological system are insignificant over the same period

Local and physical cosmology

Physical cosmology is the study of our cosmological system in terms of astronomical observation and modern theoretical physics. Local cosmology is the study of normal cosmological systems for which our cosmos may be one paradigm case

Physical cosmology provides example and illustration of the concepts of form and entity, space, time, matter, force and so on; this point is elaborated under Method, below

General or philosophical cosmology is cosmology—the study of the variety and behavior of being

General cosmology is cosmology—the study of the variety and behavior of being without restriction to kind. Simply, cosmology is the study of variety

Note again that from the global perspective, behavior is implicit in variety

Behavior is understood to include description, dynamics, origins, ends and evolution. There is no implication that these distinctions are essential

Life and mind

If science has limits are there limits to the theory of evolution? Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, 1988, argued that Darwin’s ‘theory of evolution’ was in fact five distinct theories (non-constancy of species, common descent of all extant life, gradualness, multiplication of species, and natural selection,) and that though there remain unsolved problems, the theory of evolution (1) is a fact, (2) is the only explanation consistent with and predictive of the phenomena, (3) is the only explanation that is not contradicted by any of the phenomena. Mayr emphasizes that a transition from essentialism to population thinking—in which each individual is unique—was essential for the acceptance and understanding of evolutionary theory (Darwin understood this.) While this may contradict the Platonic theory of forms and the classical notions of essence and substance, there is no conflict between population thinking and the theory of form laid out in Metaphysics—forms are dynamic (phenotype) and while individual forms have degrees of similarity they are not identical. The view in this narrative is that there is no reason to disagree with Mayr’s assessments regarding life on earth or in the likelihood of its application to any populations in other worlds

The metaphysics of immanence, however, shows that there must be an infinity of ‘planets’ with life; that an infinity of such cases follow a non-Darwinian paradigm but that this infinity is infinitesimal in comparison to the infinity of occurrences of life bearing planets. In the vastness of the Universe there is an infinity of forms; and yet each form recurs infinitely—as shown below

The scientific and philosophical study of mind and identity may, likewise, provide a paradigm case but, as shown below, is infinitely far from projecting to the universe

Method

The general ‘method’ has already been elucidated—it is the method of proof and interpretation laid out in the discussion of Method. It may be re-emphasized that this method is regarded as a framework of thought—not the algorithm for thought

Metaphysical principles in the study of general cosmology. Relation between metaphysics and cosmology

Experience and its varieties are forms of being. The notions of ‘all,’ ‘difference,’ ‘domain,’ ‘present moment,’ and ‘immediate past and present’ define objects. All objects—including Forms, Patterns and Laws—are in the universe. There are no fictions except contradictions. Every consistent concept is realized. The void which contains no object or form—or pattern or law—exists. Void. The actual, the possible, and the necessary are identical. These thoughts provide an ‘envelope’ for completeness of variety

It becomes clear that beginnings of cosmology are implicit in the metaphysics—in the analysis of the necessary objects such as ‘all’ and ‘void’ and in the study of Form… or perhaps earlier in recognition of the fact of experience and in enumerating its forms. As noted earlier, there are narrow interpretations of metaphysics and cosmology. In their narrow meanings, metaphysics is the study of depth and foundation e.g. what is the simplest form of being from which all being comes or be seen as coming; and cosmology is the theory of variety and origins. However, the distinction between metaphysics and cosmology is not perfectly sharp and in broader interpretations they are identical

Identity of Metaphysics, Logic and Cosmology

Earlier, the identity of Logic and Metaphysics was shown. Therefore, in a broad interpretation, Logic, Metaphysics and Cosmology are identical

Sources of formulation of general cosmology

In addition to method subject matter is required to formulate cosmology:

Ad hoc description and—ways or methods of—systematic enumeration of the variety of being i.e. of the variety of objects and kinds of object. Includes cosmologies from literature—myth, scripture… and micro-cosmologies—story, novel and so on. Imagination. Necessary ‘mechanism’

These sources are considered in greater detail below

Metaphysics and science

Here, metaphysics refers to metaphysics of immanence: the subject matter of the chapters, Being, Metaphysics, Logic and meaning, and Mind

In this chapter, science is used with the following restricted meaning. It is approximated by the subject matter and methods of the modern sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, mind, and society. There may perhaps be other realms but it is generally accepted that the scientific realms of being are those of the physical, the living, the mind, and the social. This science need not say that there is no realm of the spiritual or the sacred but that these realms have being andor interpretation within the standard realms. Although science is conceptual and does contain elements of speculation or hypothesis, in this meaning established science remains close to its detailed empirical roots by way of principles such as Ockham’s razor

There is and can be no contradiction between metaphysics and science. Even though it is often taken to be the case that the Universe is what is described by science in its domain of validity, that is not known by scientific method to be the case. Although there are positivist scientists—those who hold that the boundaries of science define the boundaries of the real—the rational scientist says that science describes no more than a region of the real. The domain of metaphysics is the domain of Logic. The domain of science is the intersection of the domain of Logic and a collection of conceptual systems that remain close to their—human—detailed empirical roots (specifying precisely what is meant by ‘close’ is a topic in method / philosophy of science)

Thus metaphysics includes the subject matter of science; physical cosmology is a phase of general or philosophical cosmology

As noted in the introduction to this chapter and as has been already seen in Metaphysics and will be further brought out below, the domain of the real—as revealed by metaphysics of immanence—is of infinitely greater spatiotemporal extent and variety of being than the domain revealed in science. How is that possible? Does not that upturn science and the great works of science of the last five hundred years since the time of Copernicus?

The positivist scientists will of course feel that there is an upturning. However the rationalists and reasonable scientists and other individuals will not. An aspect of the psychology of positivism is as follows. An original positivist—in contrast to a mere follower—is an individual, often extremely gifted, who has had a powerful geometric andor analytic vision of his or her world and takes that vision to be the world. This positivist is dogmatic and unreasonable and, in some aspects, inflexible. He or she is judgmental in the sense of not being open to further vision or not being reflexive, i.e., self-critical or self-analytic

There is no rational or reasonable upturning as pointed out above but most persons who have received a modern education will feel that there is an upturning of the modern secular world view. It is almost as though we moderns—and post-moderns—breath an atmosphere that is densely informed by the world view elaborated in modern physical and biological science. Certainly, the feeling of upturning of a natural order has been felt in thinking through and writing down the system of ideas of the present narrative

The concept of the normal revisited

Order is restored by the concept of the normal introduced earlier. The behavior of this cosmos is an example of normal behavior. It is likely a property of this cosmos that escape from it is extremely infeasible or, at least, normally so. The ‘normal’ is a concept that explains capture within a normal system that lies within an infinitely larger, less structured and various system

However, that scenario is require by metaphysics of immanence. The actual is necessary. The being of this cosmos is in no way in contradiction with the metaphysics

Method and science: dual study of general and local / physical cosmology

The metaphysics cannot contradict science in its valid domain. However, that domain is not precisely known with respect to frontiers in macroscopic and microscopic space-time as well as other, e.g. energy, scales. There may well be incursions into this cosmos outside its ‘normal’ realm; these incursions may normally be so improbable as to have no normal practical effect on science

Not only are actual science and metaphysics consistent but the metaphysics deploys science in the following ways:

1. In suggesting approaches in developing Metaphysics and Cosmology. Science has been a source of ideas in many ways that are no longer explicitly expressed (but remain explicit in earlier writing.) In this deployment, the metaphysical developments are not logically dependent on science; however without extensive study and reflection has probably been essential to the development and enrichment of the metaphysics and, certainly, of the cosmology

2. In giving substance to the metaphysics, e.g., as in development of Cosmology below. The developments of general cosmology are enriched by science. Science is humankind’s current-ultimate development of local / material / physical cosmology. Physical cosmology provides and is an occasion to study example and illustration of the concepts of form and entity, space, time, matter, force, causation, determinism versus indeterminism, origins, life, mind and so on. The particular case may be used to sharpen the concepts extended to the general—cosmological—case. The special instances of the concept may have interpretation in the general case via coherence as generative of normal cosmological systems. Any ‘generalization’ is not automatically valid but must be consistent with and allowed by local principles and required by general—metaphysical—principles. To what extent this general study may be definitive shall fall out of analysis. The local cosmology suggests concepts that may have general significance. The general study may result in an enumeration of ways the concepts may generalize and consequences for the local case. As an example of an application of this line of thought, it will be seen that what space and time there may be in the entire universe appears to be relative space and time, the relation between the universe and this cosmos may determine whether space and time in this cosmos will have absolute characteristics. Metaphysics of immanence disallows any universal coherence of entities and processes but requires the occasional and local occurrence of coherence. Coherence may be seen to be a / the source of form, as-if-universal space-time, quasi-mechanism evolution by variation and selection, quasi-causation, quasi-determinism

Other disciplines, literature…

Is there a relationship between the subjects of metaphysics and cosmology as developed in this narrative and the other ‘standard’ disciplines of modern scholarship? Recalling the observations that ‘fact is stranger than fiction’ and that emotion and will as well as——action contain content over above mere suggestive power and it follows that, subject to the constraint of Logic, all disciplines and practices, modern or earlier, provide material for the cosmology. Even if not determined by Logic, mathematics lies within its domain. History is of course included. Technology is very suggestive of possibility. Literature, art, drama, and—dramatic—action are included as are religion and myth if only as literature (religion will receive special treatment in Human world)

Development of the cosmology

The following topics will be discussed: mind, identity, God, manifold or space-time, variety, behavior

The treatment is not uniform. Discussion of mind is brief since it has been treated in Mind. ‘God’ is a specialized topic but it is interesting because it illustrates the metaphysics of immanence and the brevity of demonstrations from it. The bulk of the discussion is on identity—a topic that permits immense clarification of the place of human being and individuals in the universe and on space-time, variety and behavior of being

Each topic will be discussed as an aspect of general cosmology which may be followed by implications and other considerations for local / normal / physical cosmologies

As noted above from the global perspective, behavior may be seen to be implicit in variety

Behavior includes description, dynamics, origins, evolution, ends; these ‘modes’ of behavior may be convenient to study separately but which are not essentially distinct

Mind

Mind has been considered in Mind, and is further taken up in Human world

An implication of the earlier consideration on mind is that even if this cosmos is material for normal purposes, the infusion of mind from elsewhere is not logically impossible. Such infusion may occur at any time and is practically—physically—possible even if immensely unlikely in the normal case

Identity and the theory of identity

The identity of an object or of an Individual begins with the sense of continuity or sameness in change—stated this way, the identity of an object in time and personal identity can be given a uniform treatment: personal identity is the sense of sameness of self. However, identity does not stop at the sense of sameness but must be based in actual sameness. The fundamental principle shows that there is and must be higher or more inclusive identity and that the identity of human and other organisms must participate in higher identities even though not normally aware of this participation. Identity is sameness despite variety. This gives meaning to recurrence of sequential lives of an individual as delimited by birth and death and the condition of thinking of the self as finite which is a conception in which other animals may not participate… Similarly, the fundamental principle implies that finite beings including human beings participate in the depth and variety of being. In the limit the individual participates in Brahman. Normal limits concern this life. Death is a gate to infinity

Aspects of identity

From metaphysics of immanence the following thoughts regarding identity are necessary

From the developments, the following thoughts are not unreasonable—a higher identity may be experienced as if awakening from a dream; this might be the normal experience of higher identity from this life; experience of higher identity by design may be exceptional. From a higher form than this form, a normal experience of higher identity may be by design; from a lower form, normal experience of higher identity may be as if awakening from deep sleep

Through identity, every organism will have infinite knowledge—knowledge greater than the variety of this cosmos. However, such knowledge may be irrelevant to the quality of being. At root, knower and known remain in near identity; from this ‘ground,’ in which knower, known and action are bound together, the knower separates from the known

Without the metaphysics these thoughts would be mere speculations

God

As was seen in Metaphysics, God as creator of the universe can have no meaning. The universe is eternal. The universe has no ‘outside’ and therefore an external creator violates its necessary nature

However, one part of the universe may create an as-if-artifact domain. That this should be realized as a traditional God is necessary for some domains. The likelihood in the ‘normal’ case is so small as to give practically no support to the traditional cosmologies. However, the elimination of their absolute absurdity may enhance their mythic value and metaphorical interpretation

Space, time and being (matter)

In the void there is neither extension nor duration. In the void there is no extension or duration and, therefore, no space or time for space and time are measures of extension and duration, respectively

In the becoming of a manifest phase of the universe, there is the becoming of duration and extension—of space and time

Duration and extension are elements in the becoming—in the process—rather than original measures of becoming that become comparable or measurable and that fully separate out as space and time rather than space-time only in special cases. Therefore the full measurability and separation of space and time is a very special case. Degrees of separation are dependent on special conditions of a phase or domain of the universe

In attempting to conceive whether space and time are the only coordinations of ‘physical’ being, appeal is made to imagination. It seems to be the case that there is nothing beyond extension and duration, i.e., it seems that space and time are the only coordinate measures of physical being. However, this case of what seems to be resides in imagination and since it is not clear that imagination is equal to being, it does not follow that what is not seen in imagination is not contained in being. Where imagination of a geometric mold fails, symbolic expression and analysis are often possible, e.g., in the formulation of geometries of dimension higher than three and spaces that are neither homogeneous nor isotropic as is the space of Euclidean geometry

The analytic investigation of the extension of being, e.g. spatial and temporal extension, and coordinate possibilities is a research project. It has often been thought that ‘mental space’ is one possibility; however, the theory of objects developed in Objects has cast eliminated this possibility except as metaphorical or as a less than adequate substitute for the understanding developed in Objects

Space and time must be relative and not absolute. I.e., space and time or space-time are not grids whose existence and character is independent of being

Space and time are immanent in being, i.e., in the ‘matter’ of the universe

Therefore, a better title to this discussion would be ‘spatial, temporal, and material aspects of being’

A research project on the foundation of quantum theory: the becoming of space, time, matter from the void cannot be deterministic… or remain deterministic. Since the becoming may be particulate, unlimited local divisibility of space, time and matter is not the universal case

A research project on the foundation of space-time-matter or relativistic physics in the classical and quantum cases. The becoming of duration and extension is the dual becoming of the duration and extension of being; therefore, any apparent universal separability of space-time or of space-time-matter is an artifact of special circumstance

On continuity of identity in general cosmology. Implications for normal or local systems

In omitting all regularity of space and time, it does not follow that there is no memory across non-manifest phases of the universe and therefore in contemplating identity, the object of contemplation is the object of general cosmology

In some systems, identity may be experienced as discrete. Any lack of escape from discreteness of identity is contingent and localized. Escape is always possible even if immensely unlikely in the normal case. Escape is necessary but its normal prerequisite may be the normal but not absolute phenomenon of death

Space, time and matter in a local cosmological system

In this cosmological system, individual particles appear to have the same intrinsic time. I.e., although particles have different ‘clock rates’ under different circumstances e.g. in gravitational fields of different strength, an intrinsic time and ‘universal’ time can be defined

There is no inconsistency involved in the intrinsic time of this cosmos not universalizing to the entire universe

A coherent domain of a manifest phase of the universe may have, as a result of the conditions of formation, and perhaps only to a high degree of uniformity, an intrinsic time

Different domains of a manifest phase need not have the same intrinsic time. The intrinsic time of a given cosmos may be seen to be the result of coherence which may be interpreted as interaction that has relatively high strength. Different domains or cosmological systems necessarily interact but the interaction may be weak—the coherence low—and therefore their intrinsic times distinct. It is by the weaker interactions that comparison of distinct times can have significance or be measurable

Since ‘space’ and ‘time’ are measured not by some absolute or imposed standard but by objects there cannot be any universal absolute space and time grids

Since a given cosmological system may have interaction with the rest of the universe, that interaction may determine whether the space-time of the cosmological system behaves as if absolute

Regard regularity of space and time in some ideal sense to have the following characteristics. (1) Space and time are independent grids and each forms a continuum. (2) Time ‘flows’ uniformly and is unaffected by the distribution of matter. This implies that particles do not so much have intrinsic times as much as that they reside in time. (3) Space is three dimensional and Euclidean

Then, whatever, the irregularities of normal space-time may be for this cosmological system—as revealed, e.g., in the latest theories of physics—the irregularity for the entire universe must be greater. Further, the reasons for the irregularities of the space-time for the entire universe may include the reasons for the irregularities for this cosmos

Independently of the foregoing conclusion, from the formation of manifest phases of being from the void, degrees of regularity of space and time are not at all given but must be the product of special circumstances

Variety of being

Some conclusions from the fundamental principle

The number and variety 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 of the class of consistent conceptions has been resolved implicitly by naming it Logic

The issue may have resolution in terms of the concept of patch, mentioned in the context of global and local descriptions

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 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 ‘normal’ is open because this cosmos is not—may or may not be—a prototype for all cosmological or other formed systems

An entire panorama of possibility and actuality opens up. Two examples—subject, of course, to consistency. (1) Any piece of fiction is realized. (2) Any known state of any cosmological system is infinitely repeated

It is possible to talk of a map of the universe. The physical map of a scientifically informed person might have the universe originating with a ‘big bang’ about 13 billion years ago and extending about 13 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 and variety of being

The variety of being… a systematic approach

Begin with an approach…

An approach to a comprehensive list of objects and categories

An approach to a comprehensive list of objects and categories—fundamental or otherwise—may be stated. (1) Start from the established position that the manifest universe and the void are equivalent—and that they as well as related entities are objects. Construction. (2) From thought and tradition develop a list of approaches to the variety of ways to classify and so to list objects (below.) (3) Develop lists of objects and kinds of object. Criticism. (4) From Metaphysics, Objects, and Logic. (5) It may subsequently be possible to evaluate in what ways the development is complete

Practical study of objects

The following is suggested by Objects and by common sense. Empirical study—recollection of experience, imagination; discovery, exploration and experiment—empirical science. Conceptual study—fiction and literature, abstraction from particular or concrete objects, concept formation, study of patterns of actual and abstract objects, axiomatic systems, mathematics, theoretical science

From the study of Logic

Since Logic and Grammar have meaning which includes reference they define an object—the Logos or Universe. The Universe and Law of the universe define the same object. In having meaning, Syntax defines an abstract object. In that there is a variety of syntactical forms, the abstract object of Syntax is seen as compound. The—valid—logics are objects. A sentence, an inference, an argument—these are objects

The variety

The variety of being, repeated from Objects, emphasizes intuition as a source of kinds of object, describes a variety of kinds. Objects, particular and abstract, may be enumerated first by example, and second by category of intuition—if category intuition is regarded with sufficient generality as in Human being, there can be no broader system of categories. The categories include the practical distinction nature-society-universal-mind (in which universal pertains to the meaning of universe as in Metaphysics but not to the—scholastic—contrast to particular.) Actual varieties are taken up in the narrative, especially in Metaphysics, Objects—the present section, Logic, Cosmology, and Human World

Physical science

The science of physics may be regarded as the study of the simplest attributes of the objects of the ‘external’ world. In Logic it will be seen that physics is an interactive study from both concept and object sides. The study from the concept side includes mathematics whose origin may have been in an object side but whose systematic study is most conveniently conceptual. That many different kinds of systems may be studied in terms of the same mathematics is a result of similarity of the physical form—and behavior—of the different systems; such similarities may, of course, be abstract or symbolic rather than merely geometric or merely dynamic. That the social sciences are not as universally mathematical as the physical may be due to the unique / complex character of social systems. Some future, perhaps qualitative, mathematics may reduce the social sciences to symbolic study. However, given that the object—society—is as complex as the instrument—psyche—and, especially in that whatever is unique in human being is, in the nature of the case, of constitutive interest, a future mathematical sociology may, in general, be restricted to situations of merely utilitarian interest

The categories of intuition

The categories of intuition also contain the distinctions according to existence—actual versus fictional, according to definiteness of being—manifest versus potential and determinate versus indeterminate, and according to quality of knowledge—absolute versus practical, definite versus vague, and entire versus filtered. Some distinctions have instances in the following

Applications

The following topics may be treated from metaphysics of immanence

The variety may be extended in application e.g. Theory of identity

The form of ‘ethics.’ Morals as objects; ethics and objectivity

Action, concept and object

The number of fundamental concepts—it has been seen that there are perhaps no fundamental concepts. Variety is perhaps fundamental

Truth—from the theory of objects, coherence is reference (correspondence) of a system of ideas or concepts

The Real and Universals

Develop the ideas of truth, real, universal using earlier versions of Journey in Being and external sources

A variety in general cosmology

The existence of the following objects is a consequence of the fundamental principle. Annihilation. Recurrence and Karma. Identity that spans the identities of normal individuals in this world and other identities—see the theory of identity developed in Cosmology. Miracles in the sense of exception to laws of this cosmological system. A Jesus Christ rising from the dead. Recurrence and Identity. Significance in being. Fact, fiction and the unending Variety of being. Scripture and truth. The nature of death. Creation. God. The idea of self-creation. Interaction of the elements of being. Ghosts and ghost cosmological systems. Spirit as the possible transformations of the normal. Soul as the identity of a normal individual—see the theory of identity. There are no distinct universes. The Limit of imagination

That ‘Jesus Christ rising from the dead’ is an object somewhere in the universe gives little support to its being an object some 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. Necessity somewhere, gives little support to necessity at a specified location in space-time: Jerusalem-2000 years ago. However, the absolute absurdity is removed and this strengthens mythic and metaphorical meaning even as literal meaning is given no support. Further discussion of faith is taken up in Faith

The variety of objects is further taken up in Human World and Problems in metaphysics

Behavior

The universe enters a stage of being the void

From a manifest state, the universe does and must enter the void state. This may be viewed as annihilation of the—manifest state of the—universe

From the void, the universe must enter a manifest state of being

The universe may be in the void or in a manifest state. Both are actual, neither eternal. There are and must be occasions of both manifest and ‘void being’

The previous assertions properly resolve the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ that has been called the fundamental problem of metaphysics. The resolution is that occasions of manifest being are necessary. However it is not necessary that manifest being is eternal, i.e., that there is ‘always’ manifest being—there must be occasions of ‘void being’

In the void or non-manifest state there is no experience, e.g., experience of a universe. If there is experience, e.g., when there is deliberation of the fundamental problem of metaphysics, the universe must be in a manifest state

The developments in Mind show 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 truth of this assertion required a—consistent—extension of the concept of experience to the root or ground of being

Absolute indeterminism, form, and absolute determinism

The universe is absolutely indeterministic—this means that the only inaccessible and 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—consistent—states are unaccessed. This contains the absolute determinism that all—consistent—states are accessed

The absolute determinism regards which states are accessed i.e. all states are accessed. This absolute determinism is distinct from the classical concept of temporal determinism. The absolute indeterminism regards the manner including sequence of access

It is not only true that indeterminism and form are not inconsistent; they are necessarily consistent. Absolute indeterminism and absolute determinism are necessarily consistent

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

There universe has infinitely many states—it is especially true that there are infinitely many normal cosmological systems. Excepting contradiction, every actual state of being within the universe and every—possible or valid—description of a domain of the universe will recur infinitely. This assertion of ‘eternal return’ rings of ‘karma’

A truly karmic interpretation requires superposition of eternal return with identity as discussed earlier

In entering the void state, a manifest phase of the universe may be said to be annihilated

Since the void is absolutely indeterministic, and a void may be regarded as attached to every state and every domain the annihilation may be regarded as being brought about by the void

There is no special significance to ‘annihilation by the void;’ the annihilation may be regarded as self annihilation

In the sense that every state flows from it, every state is equivalent to the void

Every state is equivalent to every other state

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

All is change and flux and all is unchanging (Parmenides, Plato) may be read equally from the metaphysics of immanence but are, of course, dependent on perspective

The origin of a formed or even transient cosmos from the void is necessarily indeterministic—the void does not in any sense contain or map deterministically or in a one-to-one manner to a formed state of the universe

Although the void may be thought of a ‘base’ state of the universe relative to which formation and origins occur, the role of base state may be played by any state

Mechanism: the normal

It is useful to review this concept that was introduced earlier. The ‘regular’ behavior of this cosmological system in which there is structure and there appear to be inaccessible states, in which there is causal or 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 or may not be a prototype for what is sought, i.e., what is sought may fall out of study

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 greater durability

Perception is likely selective in the sense that there is greater focal perceptivity of complex forms in cosmological systems of certain types of greater complexity

It appears reasonable that combination of greater durability and perceptivity should result a greater population of perceived states that are formed than those that are unformed

If it is true that a high degree of form necessarily entails high perceptivity, then the population of perceived states will not depend on kind of form

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 Mind

The normal is a generic term for the being of a formed cosmos in an absolutely indeterministic background

Mechanism is typically associated with the normal. Normal process includes mechanism

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

While variation and selection is necessary to form, the number of ‘steps’ is contingent

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 forms

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

In a highly generalized sense of causation, there may be said to be universal causation but such causation is little like classical or quantum causation and is not at all deterministic. In the generalized, indeterministic, non one-to-one sense, the void may be thought of as causing manifest being. However, to say so might be misleading

The—classical—idea of causation suggests determinism or near determinism; it suggests, in the case of creation, that what is created is contained—in some sense—in the creating agent

It is good to say that while manifest being may come from the void, it is not contained in or determined by the void

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 in a normal cosmological system. It was earlier noted that the meaning of ‘normal’ must remain open. It is normal—and necessary—that there should be exceptions to normal behavior

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—in the classical sense—or absolutely deterministic

All causation is at most quasi-causation; all (temporal) determinism is at most quasi-determinism

In the global mode of description, absolute indeterminism and absolute determinism are identical. There identity lies in the fact that every state is realized which is indeterministic in that no state is ruled out and global-deterministic (not temporal) in that every state is included

As a result of universal interaction—which follows from the fundamental principle, there must be some weak—kind of—universal causation

It is seen again how much truth is affected by meaning

Determinism

Just as there are phases of quasi-causation, there may also be phases of near or quasi-determinism. It is classic that the quantum theory predicts cases of deterministic behavior in bound and in aggregate states

Cosmology: an explicit formulation

From the development so far, this section describes a coherent picture of the general cosmology. Since it is impossible to describe all detail no picture can be fully explicit. The objective of the section is to provide an overview that is sufficiently articulated that it permits the formation of ‘a picture’ but also at such a level of abstraction that it may be regarded as complete at that level. It is also the objective that no principle of reason or logic should be sacrificed and that the cosmology, science and common sense should be brought into harmony—which may entail that science and common sense be required to adjust at the edges of their domains of validity

The title of this section could be The standard cosmology but that would be misleading since the phrase is used for a particular physical cosmology whose centerpiece is an initial singularity or big bang with initial extremely rapid expansion or inflation

The cosmology

Mode of description—global versus local—employed will vary according to what is most economical. In the global mode, ‘state’ includes process

The possible and actual states and their identity

Every concept or description of a state of being that does not harbor or contain paradox is realized. The actual, the possible and the necessary are identical—the precise meaning of this statement has been discussed earlier. It is not clear whether there is an explicit concept of all states of the universe even if the universe itself or any of its domains is the subject or conceiver. However, there can be no explicit list of all states

Except contradiction there is no fiction

The contradictory states are the non-existent states

In the sense that contradictory states have no realization and are therefore not even fictional, there are no fictions

Existence and properties of the void

The void which contains no object exists and is a state of being. Here ‘object’ includes Entity, Form, Pattern and Law—capitalization is a reminder that the concepts refer to their immanent forms

Universal access of states

The universe enters a state of being the void. From the void, every state of the universe is accessible and therefore accessed. From every state, the void is accessible and accessed

From every state every state is accessible and accessed

The state transitions may be described as absolutely indeterministic (obviously) and absolutely deterministic in that no state is excluded from be-coming

Being, extension and duration. Signal speed

Extension and duration are immanent in being. Even though it may appear that extension and duration exhaust the idea of magnitude, this is not entirely clear. The concept of being (global) may therefore be regarded as the concept of being (local)-magnitude. It is not clear for reasons just stated whether the concept of magnitude has complete realization in terms of space and time. Additionally, the separations being (local) and space and time may (do) not have universal character. The most that can be hoped for even without the separation, i.e. in a being (local)-space-time, is patchwork

It is clear that there can be no universal speed of propagation of signals (the point has not been mentioned earlier)

Substance

There is no universal substance. The void could be regarded as a substance. However, that would violate the kind of simplicity of substance that has motivated substance ontology over millennia in Western and Indian philosophies. The simplicity in question for monistic and dualistic substance ontologies is that of a uniform eternal unchanging ‘substrate’ that deterministically manifests as all variety and change. The void has none of these properties of simplicity. Instead, its supreme simplicity is the one of being a posteriori rather than a priori to investigation and reason. It is the result rather than the precondition of investigation. More precisely, the concept of the void is determined or made explicit (reference) neither at the outset nor at the end of analysis—in maximizing the reality of the void, its utility is also maximized

Therefore, mind and matter, at least in any of their usual specification in terms of sense and reference, are and cannot be universal substances. However, mind is capable of reaching down to the root of being. In earlier versions of this narrative it was written that though mind and matter in their present scientific and philosophical formulations are not identical and even though substance character is not clear, it is now seen that there may be a limit in which they have identity and that identity occurs in relinquishing particular characters. In their identity they are or reach down to the root of being

Depth

Although the root of being may be experienced as deep, in that the system of explanation is simultaneously trivial and profound metaphysics of immanence reveals the depth to be on the surface

Identity

Over the ‘history’ of the universe identity forms, individuates, and merges. There is a state of universal identity in which the non-eternal, separate and limited scope and awareness of the individual or individuated identities merge with the eternal and shed the limit

Objects

The limit of the idea of entity to particular object is an illusion even if a useful or practical one. There is no essential distinction between the particular and the abstract objects

Variety

Every piece of fiction that entails no contradiction is realized as a state of being

Every actual state is infinitely repeated

There is a potpourri of variety from the traditional stories, legends, mythologies and religions—that may of course be supplemented by imagination. See A variety in general cosmology. There is no limit to the series begun in the traditions. Although the significance of these pictures may lie in the non-literal dimension of meaning-as-significance the pictures are necessarily realized. The realization, perhaps in another cosmological system, adds to their significant-meaning but give little support to their actual realization in this cosmos or on this earth

Local and normal cosmology

The cosmology appears to contradict our common secular and mythological-religious-literary world views

However, our cosmological system is not only allowed but is required by metaphysics of immanence

Therefore, there is no conflict between the present metaphysics-cosmology-logic and the scientific description of the local cosmological system

According to the present metaphysics-cosmology, this cosmos repeats infinitely: it is not this cosmos precisely but a system of replicas. What is more there is an infinite variety and hierarchy of kinds of ‘cosmological’ systems

The thought that the universe is like this cosmos was labeled cosmomorphism above. The idea that this cosmos is or is at the center of the universe is cosmocentrism

We are ever in a state of overcoming the limited viewpoints. We want to overcome them but not entirely. We need to overcome them for some purposes but not for all purposes. We may simultaneously shed and harbor the limited view. Multivalent attitude is good and necessary depending on the way in which the attitudes are assumed. And the moral character of the attitudes also depends on the way in which the attitude is held. I may love humankind with a special sentiment without relegating the animal world to insignificance, to a place also in sentiment and love

The concept of the normal and of mechanism

The reader who accepts the logic of the development so far may continue to experience unease with an apparent violence done by the ‘new’ picture to the traditional (modern, secular) picture

How is this cosmological system, this world with its stability consistent with the infinite flux of the general cosmology? If all is flux and all is absolute determinism what is the source of stability of this world?

The answer lies in the concepts of the normal and of mechanism. The idea is that this world is ‘normal’ in its relative though not absolute stability and its relative but not absolute isolation from the rest of the infinitely greater universe. The question ‘how does a normal world arise from the background of a universe that did not contain that world or its nature’ immediately arises. The concept that addresses this question is the concept of mechanism. As will be seen mechanism is rather like normal process and therefore it will not be typical to employ the phrase ‘normal mechanism’

The working of mechanism

The working of mechanism derives by analogy with the process of variation and selection from biological evolution. However mechanism and its nature is derived independently and is not derived from or depend on evolutionary arguments

Recall that the universe enters a state of being the void. Therefore this cosmological system ‘emerged,’ perhaps indirectly, from the void. Since any element of being is equivalent to the element and the void, it is not necessary to begin the argument with the void—it is just simpler to do so

This cosmos may have emerged in a single step. That is not logically impossible and, because of recurrence, there must be infinitely many cosmological systems identical to this one and of those infinitely many emerged in a single step. Although it is not unreasonable that number that emerged in a single step is a lower order of infinity, this does not follow on the general cosmology

That may seem improbable. However, the void has no ‘time limit.’ There may be many random emergences that lack symmetry and therefore stability and therefore die back into non-existence. The picture is a little more complex because stability is not a requirement of being in general. However, for form and variety, symmetry is a requirement. Therefore the universe may at times be a ‘soup’ of ‘failed experiments.’ Since the void and the soup have forever, there will be a ‘time’ when sufficient symmetry emerges that has form and stability sufficient to the emergence of further variety—even of life and intelligence as we know it or beyond. This ‘mechanism’ is a normal mechanism and it has elements in common with those of evolution. However, since the void is not deterministic and since determinism cannot yield stability, such mechanism is necessary

In arriving at this stage of this cosmological system, then, the mechanism is twofold. We may say that there are two mechanisms

The first mechanism is the activity from the void which may be sparse or frenetic but over the absolute infinity of ‘time’ infinitely many cosmological systems like—and perhaps unlike—this one are generated. Infinitely many are identical to this one at any stage which can includes the ‘original’ state, i.e. the singularity (if that is what it was.) The actual origin from the void could be single or multiple step as further discussed below; the distinction is important to the discussion at its present level of detail. In biological evolution—factually and in theory—history is crucial to outcome. In this first mechanism or stage history is not crucial (at the pertinent level of detail)

In reviewing the argument it should be noted that the term ‘single step’ is ambiguous for what may be a single step from one perspective may be many steps from another. The point is that mechanism is required by metaphysics of immanence to get phases of being to a point where secondary and familiar or familiar-like mechanisms emerge: the large scale evolution of a cosmos and within that mold the evolution of life. It may be said that mechanism necessarily includes the emergence of the secondary mechanisms

From symmetry arguments given earlier, the cosmos is given a structure and laws that govern the dynamical evolution of the cosmos. Even though the—quantum—laws are not altogether deterministic, there is a discernible though not necessarily altogether deterministic trajectory. At some point sufficient complexity arose such that the origin and evolution of life became possible. The working of this evolution is the second mechanism

From the perspective of this cosmological system, some physicists have given persuasive arguments that sentient life forms similar to ours elsewhere in the cosmos is very improbable. Similarly, in looking at the evolution of life on earth the number of critical steps requiring very special conditions from origins via the various life forms to the present, some biologists have argued the improbability of the evolution of life even given similar initial conditions

From the perspective of the present general cosmology-metaphysics, the above improbabilities give way to necessity. The present cosmos is infinitely repeated; the number of recurrences of similar cosmological systems is greater; and the variety and number of systems that could be labeled cosmological is even greater. What is the significance to all that variety? How does it affect our lives? Under normal circumstances there is no effect. That is perhaps not entirely true but the probability of an effect may be infinitesimal. Still, the knowledge of all those actualities is significant. Crucially, however, in going beyond the normal the theory of identity has revealed the necessity and levels of communication among all individuals in the universe

Some conclusions regarding mechanism and explanation

1. Unless a greater organization or organizing ability is manifest—the watchmaker for every watch—explanation in terms of factors or mechanism intrinsic to the system is not only most effective, it is the only explanation of the emergence of structure for a non-intrinsic explanation still requires an explanation of the non-intrinsic or interventionist factors

2. Generally, ultimate causes in the emergence of complex novel structure are best broken down into steps that count as gradual and that involve chance and cause. Regardless of gradualism, the presence of chance is necessary for the emergence of novelty

Cause and determinism

Although there is no universal causation in the classic sense there may, as has been seen, pockets of as-if causation and as-if determinism

Relations to the inflationary multiverse model

The inflationary multiverse theory, one of whose authors is Andrei Linde, combines, first, a rapid initial inflation with the singularity or big-bang theory or model of the origin of this cosmological system. The combination of inflation and singularity explains the observed homogeneity of the cosmos that is unexplained on singularity theory alone. It is then pertinent to explain how, if this cosmological system is regarded as the universe as it usually had been in science, the cosmos came to have the remarkable combination of properties that made possible, as an important example, the evolution of intelligent life on earth. This issue is addressed by the multiverse cosmological theory of Andrei Linde according to which the universe is made of many ‘universes’ with different properties and this ‘universe’ or cosmological just happens to one that has the requisite properties necessary for its particular character

Note that in the previous paragraph the terms multiverse and universe (without quotes) correspond to the term universe or Universe of this narrative; they refer to all that exists (global description.) The term ‘universe’ (with quotes) is this or any bubble-universe or cosmological system

There is a clear analogy between the multiverse model or theory and the cosmology of the present narrative. However the cosmology of this narrative is based in the metaphysics of immanence whose fundamental principle is logical. The multiverse theory starts with modern theoretical physics, i.e. the relativistic theory of gravitation and quantum theory. Therefore the cosmology of this narrative, for which definitive proof has been given, is more inclusive than multiverse theory whose status remains perhaps probable and uncertain

Linde’s multiverse theory has been criticized as being not testable, of violating Ockham’s principle, of referring to what is not observed and perhaps not observable and therefore being non-scientific. A more specific criticism is that on account of the age of this cosmological system and the limiting speed of light, communication among the ‘universes’ is impossible, so making the idea of a multiverse no better than a fiction

Regarding the cosmology of this narrative, its essential basis is in Logic and therefore the objection of being non-scientific does not touch it. In fact, as discussed earlier, there is an interpretation in which the present metaphysics has a derivation from Ockham’s principle. Also, as discussed earlier, there is no universal signal (‘light’) speed and therefore the objection from the speed of light does not apply. That there is no prohibition of interaction between any part of the universe and any other part has been demonstrated. The prohibition in this cosmos is one that follows because the propagation speed of all fundamental forces is the speed of light and is built into the laws of theoretical which, however, are normal laws; therefore there must be exceptions even if in the normal case such exceptions are not observed due to their improbability

God, mechanism and evolution

Since the universe is all being any god is part of it. There is no external creator of the universe

One part of the universe may have an effect on another part; the effecting part may have god-like features; that is logically possible

The arguments of the previous section show that a non-interventionist explanation of the origin and dynamical evolution of this cosmological system is far more satisfactory than one based on divine intervention. The arguments show that God is not necessary and that the non-interventionist case is far more frequent. The ‘God argument’ suffers from a further deficiency. Whereas the argument from the void starts from the simplest of all things—the void that requires no explanation, the God arguments starts from a God that is apparently more complex than his or her creation and remains unexplained; the argument above is not based in external factors, the God argument is based on a God that stands outside the cosmological system and even the universe

Overview

Human beings experience this cosmological system as vast and often as magnificent and beautiful. The forces of nature acting in and on our earth are often an occasion for awe. Although human nature is often inadvertently and intentionally destructive it is also experienced as exquisite. Wonder lies within experience; it is a relation between perceiver and perceived

The universe that is all being is of infinitely greater magnitude than this cosmos in terms of extent, duration and variety of entity, structure and law