A way of living fully is to reach for the ultimate; the true ultimate reaches inward toward the immediate; there ought to be no denial of the immediate.

Secular paradigms and ways are grounded in consensus experience; transsecular paradigms assert that there is more. Standard versions of the paradigms have limited truth. The main sources of limits are (i) for the secular, to think the universe is like the known cosmos, whose boundary is defined by the limits of today’s physics (ii) for the transsecular, to think dogmatically regarding cosmology, (iii) for both, to be inadequately imaginative and inadequately critical.

The conflict between the standard secular and transsecular retards our sense of being and exploration—secular thinkers are discouraged from open thinking by their own conservatism and the dogma of religion; transsecular thinkers are discouraged by the conservatism of dogma and its crumbling in the face of science.

The paradigm of the way

We will find a way for the secular and transsecular to not be in conflict; for the secular to be a phase of the transsecular; and for both to be open to imagination, possibility, and reflexive criticism (i.e., criticism itself as well as criticism of received critical thought). In what follows I have shown consistency of the results with experience and what is true in received paradigms and to prove claims. I have not hesitated to use imagination; but I have given justification of the results.

The paradigm of the way, the real metaphysics developed, is ultimate in capturing some aspects the universe, which it shows to be ultimate (the senses of the terms ‘some aspects’ and ‘ultimate’ will emerge in the development). But what is metaphysics? We conceive metaphysics as knowledge of the real. There is a history of metaphysics, debate as to what it is, and doubt that it is possible. In what follows, the conception, its possibility, and actual metaphysics are justified.

As an example of the ultimacy, the universe will be shown to have cosmoses of limitless number and variety of physical law. Therefore, whereas modern cosmology often conflates ‘our cosmos’ with ‘the universe’, the narrative will avoid that conflation.

The nature of this work

The narrative is offered as a contribution to human thought and endeavor; it derives much from world literature, western and eastern; successive versions of the way, of which there are many, are incremental in development and draw significantly from one another.

It is emphasized that knowledge is significant but does not constitute full realization. Knowledge and action interact in a process of transformation of our being.

The work derives much from western philosophy, logic, metaphysics, and science, which require imagination and criticism. It notes a common tacit and default view of these disciplines as revealing the limits of knowledge and the world—and finds that view to be in error.

It finds that the limit of the world is the possible; that it finds the world as limitless; it constructs an amalgam of world as limitless and received paradigms in light of a process of experience, imagination, and criticism; it finds the way forward to be a continuation of that amalgam and that process.

Understanding the way

Understanding the way will require seeing and relinquishing the limits of the standard paradigms and making efforts to understanding and intuiting the new; in this attempt, it is essential to attend to meanings as defined here. It will be helpful to see that the meanings constitute a system of meaning.

Being

Being and beings

A being is that which is; being is the property of beings as beings.

For ‘that which is’ we will say ‘that which exists’ and for ‘being’ we will say existence’.

This this shall constitute the present meaning of ‘to exist’ and ‘existence’; there shall be no need to attribute further meaning to these terms. As ‘object’ has limiting connotations, it is better to say that a being is an existent. The plural of a being is beings; however, as being is a property, it has no plural.

The universe

The universe is all being.

There is one universe.

Laws

A being has a pattern if the data to describe it completely is less than the raw data.

A law is a pattern, often for a being such as a cosmos or greater.

The universe and laws are beings—they exist.

The void; its existence

The void is the absence of being—the being that has no parts (‘sub-beings’).

That it is defined does not guarantee that it is a being—i.e., that it exists. However, if the void does exist, it is the being that contains no beings as parts. Particularly, it contains no laws.

That it makes no difference whether the void exists or does not exist implies that we can consistently say that—

The void exists.

Justification (so far)

What is established so far is perfect by abstraction—in which a concept is stripped of all detail capable of distortion.

This perfection obtains in a correspondence or representational sense.

Though being was defined as a property, i.e., as adjectival, with sufficient abstraction it may be regarded as an entity, for the distinction between entity and property disappears. Interestingly, properties, relations, are beings; also, linguistic constructs and tropes are beings (over and above possible reference to beings).

Possibility

Possibility and impossibility

A being is possible if the concept of the being does not rule out its existence; it is otherwise impossible. A being is necessary if existence is implied by the concept.

Conceptual or logical possibility

A being is conceptually possible or logically possible if the concept itself does not rule out existence (e.g., the concept should not be self-contradictory as in a square circle).

Real possibility

Some kinds of possibility

Logical possibility is necessary (but not thus far in the narrative, known to be sufficient) for real possibility. Examples of real possibility are universal possibility (the conditions of existence at all), physical possibility—the being must satisfy physical law for our cosmos; and biological, human, economic, technological, and political possibilities. Universal possibility has two interpretations (i) general conditions for existence and (ii) the collection conditions for existence in some context. Physical impossibility (not satisfying the laws of our cosmos) does not imply universal impossibility.

Existent and nonexistent beings

An existent, actual, or real being is one for which the concept indeed refers to an existent or referent.

A nonexistent being is one for which the concept has no referent. It is clear that it is better to consider an ‘object’ to be a concept-object rather than a bare object. A nonexistent being is one for which the referent is nil. An impossible being is one for which there can be no referent—in this case we may say that the referent is null.

The fundamental principle of metaphysics

The idea

The idea of the fundamental principle is that all possibilities are realized.

Let us motivate the idea by providing some heuristic reasons to want to see it as true. Keep in mind (a) the heuristic arguments below are not intended as demonstration (b) demonstration (proof) is given in the next section.

What is the ultimate law of physics? It is probably beyond present understanding. But the boundary of physical law—i.e., that which physical law cannot exceed—is logical possibility.

Does the universe attain this boundary? It would be consistent with science, reason, and experience.

Inquire into the space of possibility. It is limitlessly greater than the known. This suggests it is likely that the real is limitlessly greater than the known (this is not a true estimate of likelihood because it would count over what may be but not over what is known).

We may find finiteness, e.g., a finite life, absurd, and inexplicable; limitlessness would remove some absurdity regarding—provide some meaning for—our seeming finiteness.

It might seem there can be no explanation or reason for the existence of all that there is, for there is apparently nothing else that would be its cause or reason (in a longer version the way of being, this is found to be untrue). However, assume there is an explanation. Since it is an explanation of all being it would be an explanation or argument without a premise—i.e., with a null premise. From symmetry of the null premise, if there is an explanation for the existence of one possible state (our cosmos), there is an explanation for all possibilities.

These considerations suggest a limitlessness universe. However, is the idea merely a possibility that arises in the hope of people lacking the courage to face finiteness?

Let us turn to proof.

Demonstration of the principle

If from the void, there is a conceptually or intrinsically (or logically) possible state or being that does not emerge, that would be a law of the void. But since the void contains no beings—

Every possible being emerges from the void.

That is, given a concept of a being that is not intrinsically impossible, it (the concept) is realized in the universe; simply—

The universe contains all possibilities.

That is, the universe contains all possible concept-objects. But since there are no impossible objects, it may be equivalently said that the universe contains all concept-objects.

The above formulations are known as the fundamental principle of metaphysics.

The number of voids

Effectively, there is one void. This explains use of the term the void.

An abstract metaphysics

Cosmology of limitless identity

The fundamental principle is perfect via abstraction; it entails an abstract metaphysics, which is therefore, also perfect, and of which a part is a cosmology of limitless identity.

The following brief version of this cosmology is later given in greater detail; it is given as illustration and so the definition of ‘identity’ is deferred.

We have thus shown the fact and possibility of significant metaphysics. Later, the ‘real metaphysics’ expands on this demonstration.

Physics and cosmology of limitless identity

The fundamental principle shows that the common naïve conflation of the physics of our cosmos with the real is simplistic and limited. This becomes especially clear from the cosmology of limitless identity and the real metaphysics (the real metaphysics is developed later). There is nothing in science or its method that implies the naïve conflation of physics with the real; yet it is natural enough, given the tendency to conflate common experience with the real. Often, however, the conflation is the result of hubris.

Limits of the cosmology so far

The cosmology of limitless identity informs us that we realize the ultimate but not how to realize it; it tells us what is possible but not what is likely. Let us rectify this situation.

The real metaphysics

In greater detail—the pragmatic and its paradigms, together with intelligence (defined later), provide means of negotiating civilizations and cosmoses on the way to the ultimate; that this means does not constitute perfect correspondence knowledge is given but not significant relative to the ultimate value of realization; the join of the abstract and the pragmatic therefore constitute a value-relative ultimate metaphysics named the real metaphysics; in this system, the abstract or perfect illuminates and guides the pragmatic or instrumental, and the pragmatic illustrates and is instrumental toward the ultimate. This metaphysics has an epistemology that is a dual (representational-pragmatic) in terms of traditional epistemologies but monist in terms of the new value relative epistemology (the old epistemologies retain significance in immediate contexts). The old purisms are given up in favor of a new purism.

Use of some paradigms

Let us consider some paradigms and their application.

It is possible that one’s experience is the world (this is called philosophical solipsism); that is, while we label (the object of) some experiences ‘the world’ and the object of others ‘experience itself’, perhaps there is nothing but (my) experience. How then do we know that our world is as we typically experience it (as described in the division on experience). The standard response to solipsism is to use a significant characteristic of our apparent being in the world as real in order to rebut it as improbable or impossible (and there is learning in doing so, which is a value to skeptically considering apparently absurd interpretations of the world of experience such as solipsism). However, solipsism cannot be eliminated on logical ground. Further, the real metaphysics implies, not that our world is—or is not—solipsist, but that there are solipsist worlds. Therefore, to establish typical experience as real, if it is possible, must assume some extra-logical, i.e., real, datum. An example is that privacy of experience is absurd (but it is not logically absurd, except on some further assumption).

Here, because we are interested in the use of received and other paradigms, we will argue that the paradigm of origin and evolution by incremental variation and selection suggests that the standard interpretations of the world are far more likely than ‘world as my experience’ or Russell’s ‘world together with our memories just having come into existence’. That is, the standard interpretation is much more likely than the apparently absurd logical equivalents. But solipsism as solipsism has a perhaps surprising interpretation in what follows.

But now, we have a new paradigm—that of the limitlessness of the universe encoded into the real metaphysics. Below we consider this new paradigm together with the real paradigm of human beings as sapient experiencers to build up a picture that is broader than and includes the above standard and absurd interpretations as special cases, with the absurd as unusual. As it derives from the real metaphysics, the new picture is ultimate.

Use of paradigms, new and from our world and cosmos, continues.

Experience

Motive

We accustomed to thinking of a rock or a mountain as material. As beings that are not merely material in that manner, what is the nature of our being, and how are we connected to the real?

Advance summary for experience

The world is commonly experienced as self and others in a material environment. However, this is not known to be real. It is an interpretation.

The development is continued in subsequent sections through pragmatic dimensions, and continued later in philosophy of consciousness and free will.

The concept of experience

Comment 1. This section needs serious editing and pruning.

i. A first conception is that experience is consciousness.

ii. In greater detail, this conception of experience is as conscious awareness (as experience-of and the-experienced) in all its forms (feeling, perception, conception, recall, choosing), modes (directed—to the world, to action, reflexively, to experience itself, i.e., awareness of experience, and pure, in which the-experienced is nil or null, and experience-of is just experience).

iii. In a standard secular view, SSV, the experiential world—‘our world’—as a world is that of conscious beings in a material environment; note that SSV is how the world seems to present to us; if our world is a substance world, which it is at least roughly and which it is often taken to be, SSV is inconsistent with matter as entirely non-experiential.

iv. Analyzing experience, we observe that there is ‘the experiencer’ – ‘the experience’ – ‘the experienced’ or just experiencer-experience-experienced : experience is relational; this lends itself to relinquishing the view of matter as entirely non-experiential, and, rather, to seeing it as relational at core (substance or stuff) with two sides ‘the experiencer’ – substance – ‘the experienced’; however, to avoid (metaphysical) confusion, we ought not call the stuff matter but see it as neutral—as being; possibly captured in current or some future physics.

v. This leads to an extended and improved version of SSV, equivalent to it as far as our cosmos is concerned, bit consistent with our world as a substance world; in this extended standard secular view, ESSV, the environment is experiential with low—perhaps zero or nil, but not null—level experientiality; now the world is seen as an experiential field with individuals as centers of experience (this is not anti-materialist, for within our cosmos as a substance world, nil and null experientiality are equivalent); in this view, if we think of the stuff or being of the world as ‘matter’, it would not be matter in a strict sense that excludes mind.

vi. On reflection, both SSV and ESSV are interpretations of the experiential world of experience of selves in a material environment (i.e., of SSV but without ascription to it as reality), rather than reality (an interpretation of experience is a picture of the real that is consistent with the experiential world or part of it); this should already have been apparent from the earlier discussion of solipsism. For simplicity in what follows ‘interpretation’ will mean a picture of the entire world which is consistent with the entire experiential world.

vii. There is now another interpretation of the world of experience, which is suggested by ESSV—universe as field of experience, FOE, or field of being, FOB, based in the second sense—the universe as field of experience, FOE, or field of being, in which the universe is an experiential field, and individuals are ‘bright, focal, layered centers of experientiality’.

viii. FOE is consistent with the real metaphysics; if it is FOE with realization of the greatest possibility, it is then the real metaphysics understood as accommodating experiential being and is, therefore, a maximal FOE. This is also an interpretation; however, this maximal interpretation is equivalent to the real metaphysics, is more robust than ESSV, includes ESSV as a special case (e.g., for our cosmos); it also allows the earlier solipsist and limitless identity cosmologies; further, it accommodates all attributes and qualities (see the section space, time…) and therefore though it is an interpretation, is equivalent to all interpretations that capture all and only the real, and is therefore a ‘real interpretation’. We could abbreviate maximal FOE as MFOE, but henceforth it will be just FOE.

ix. FOE may seem to be but is not a substance view because what has been established is a relational view of the universe (supplemented by state-process as in space, time…) and the relation has been found to be experience in its extended sense. ‘Experience’ will do double duty in referring to the animal and to the root level.

x. The relationship FOE : SSV is somewhat analogous to the progress in scientific theories in which newer theories have a more inclusive region of application, but the older still have some region of application. The analogy is incomplete in that while the current theories of science are most likely not final, even in our cosmos, FOE is final over the entire universe—explicitly with regard to depth and implicitly with regard to depth.

xi. Below, in space, time…, identity, space, time, and being are developed as aspects of experience; particularly, for there to be identity, there must be change (and, so, duration or time), and thus the world is experiential form and formation (‘pure dimension of the world’)

xii. We repeat that, in the second sense of experience as relational, experience extends to the root of being—and to all being

xiii. That is, the universe may be seen as an experiential being, which, per the real metaphysics, is limitless in variety, extension, duration, peak, and dissolution.

xiv. The real metaphysics requires that there are solipsist worlds (a repeated remark) (which we saw are of limited stability and significance)—but universe as FOE can be seen as solipsist universe in which the experience is the being, which is the universe.

xv. The realization of the ultimate by limited beings must be via experience, but experience, as seen, has two sides—experience of and the experienced; as the place of our being, the ‘experience of’ or experiential side is the intrinsic place and means of realization (thus the significance of reason, meditation, yoga, and personal action), and ‘the experienced’ side is the material and social side, which are instrumental in realization. As elaborated in the section, pragmatic dimensions, the pragmatic dimensions of the world may be chosen, per the pragmatic side of the real metaphysics, from the paradigms of culture; the paradigm of western culture that sees the world as nature and society is chosen and enhanced to include the ultimate or universal.

The narrative now continues with an extended treatment of experience.

Significance and meaning

The being that has no effect in experience in the first sense is effectively nonexistent. The term ‘effectively’ may be omitted since experience is the place of significance and meaning.

With the second sense of experience (i) the being that has no effect in experience is nonexistent (ii) the being that has no experience is nonexistent.

Space, time, pure dimension of being

Because the physical can be seen as being-in-itself and the psychic as being-in-relation; and a further attribute would be just being-in-relation; therefore, there are no further Spinozan attributes (extension and thought, for Spinoza, and which correspond to being-in-itself and being-in-relation, respectively); but there may be qualities without limit.

Pragmatic dimensions

These broad divisions have elaboration and detail, which it is convenient to specify later, in the context of realization.

Cosmology of limitless identity

The following is a more complete version of the cosmology of limitless identity.

The universe

Individuals

Yoga and reason

The way

Universal pathway and the dimensions of being

Universal pathway—the focus is the pure and pragmatic dimensions above.

The pure dimensions are realized via yoga and immersion in the world.

From considerations of the real metaphysics, the pragmatic dimensions stated earlier will be instrumental and realization; let us therefore elaborate on nature, society, and the ultimate or universal.

Before stating how the pragmatic dimensions are realized, let us elaborate on them as given earlier—(i) nature or the world as we find it is constituted of the elementary or physical, the complex or living, and the experiential and sapient; (ii) Society and the social are the world as we build a niche of civilization in it—and requires and has definition in terms of culture and artifact (the range of knowledge as in a system of knowledge, which includes the natural and social sciences, the abstract sciences including metaphysics and mathematics, technology, art and literature, history, and religion); (iii) the universal or ultimate as it is realize by sapient beings with culture and artifactuality.

Some useful further detail on the pragmatic dimensions follows. Especially important are the technologies of resource extraction, exploration, and machine intelligence; the social sciences of politics, economics, and culture itself—language, education, and cultural advancement including research; and inspiration from the traditional ways of realization (subject to criticism and imagination—religion ought not to be conceived empirically, but in terms of the possibilities of transsecular thought and action, specifically the employment of the entire being of individuals and civilizations engaged in the realization of all being).

About religion

Note—if religion is understood empirically, secular study will tend to be superficial and focus on explaining psychologically and functionally, with an outcome of ‘explaining away’. Empirically, the religions are obviously riddled with untruth and therefore ought to be separated from the secular, ought not to be imposed. But as conceived here, religion would be true; there would be no artificial distinction between secular vs transsecular knowledge. With this understanding there is and ought to be no separation—there is nothing to separate. As this will inspire our being-in-the-world, it is the way forward. For it to succeed, its use to justify corruption will (must) be avoided.

Everyday pathway

The templates (pathways) in the resources below are designed to be comprehensive over the elements and dimensions of the way and adaptable to a full range of individual through civilization contexts.

On method I—developing the metaphysics

Let us end the formal development with thought on method. The aim is to post-justify the development of the way.

Problems of method

Method is the how of something.

It has been thought that there is method to acquiring and confirming knowledge and that there is method to rational action in the sense of best action in a context. That there is method is contentious; the contention is removed in acknowledging problems of method, (i) how is it specified (ii) what certainty does it guarantee?

Knowledge acquisition and confirmation has been divided into (a) understanding or direct knowledge (e.g., in perception) (b) reason in which knowledge is inferred from already established knowledge, direct or indirect. Here, we prefer the term reason to cover direct and indirect modes.

The abstract metaphysics

The development of the abstract metaphysics began with being. The facts of the being of being, of beings, universe, and law were established via abstraction. Though empirical process is not certain in general, the abstract level of the foregoing concepts establishes them as definitely having referents.

That the void exists was established by noting the equivalence of its existence and nonexistence. This is the application of a logical formulation that is simple, empirical, abstract, and perfect. A similar simple logical formulation established that the void has no laws and therefore every possible being emerges from the void.

That is, given the abstract concepts and the logical formulations, the fundamental principle and its abstract metaphysics are certain.

Method and its results or content arise together. Next, we see that in the abstract context neither is opaque.

For the abstract metaphysics, there is no a priori, either in the receive sense of being prior to experience (of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ worlds) or in an extended sense of there being something prior to reason.

Ultimate character of the abstract metaphysics

The abstract metaphysics is ultimate in capturing the universe which is shown to be ultimate.

General logic

Note that the conception of logic as conditions for realization is alternative to logic as inference but broader than the latter. For it includes establishment of (abstract) fact; it shows the empirical character of logic (but why logic is prior to and more certain than science); and it shows that our logics are just a few possible and therefore a few actual logics. Every system of logic builds on some forms of expression—our logics are built upon some discrete, if sometimes infinitary, forms of expression. Generalization is possible (i) regarding the forms (ii) in relinquishing the discreteness or our symbolic forms, e.g., in moving toward continuous forms, which may include intuition. Also, logic becomes a science; and as general logic (a coined term) it includes argument as it is conceived in establishment of conclusions by establishing and inference from premises.

In this narrative it is seen that general logic, argument, reason, and yoga, ought not to be seen as different activities. There is specialization within and among cultures, but specialization is very often promoted at the expense of the unity of being and experience.

The real metaphysics

The extension of the abstract metaphysics to the real metaphysics is pragmatic. However, the in terms of the value ultimate realization revealed by the perfect abstract, the real metaphysics is perfect.

Response to standard criticism

A further crucial issue should be noted. The possibility of method, e.g., rationality has been criticized on accounts (i) there is no perfect knowledge (ii) at the root of the idea of perfect rationality and method, lies value (which is arbitrary) and (iii) life is about more than method. Item i has been addressed—there is some perfect knowledge which is a frame for the pragmatic, and which is perfect in terms of value and this more than addresses ii. Thus, method as understood here is a framework for and inclusive of the richness of life, which is incorporated to the pathways.

Ultimate character of the real metaphysics

Near the beginning of the narrative, it was said that the real metaphysics is ultimate in capturing some aspects of the universe. We now see that it is ultimate in depth or foundation and in showing a boundary of the universe—the boundary is given by general logic; and this also shows the universe itself to be limitless (for logic is not a limit on the world but a constraint on concepts for their realization). However, for limited beings the limitless variety within remains open for discovery and adventure.

Two issues of method remain (i) doubt and (ii) using the real metaphysics.

Doubt

It is natural to doubt the fundamental principle and the abstract metaphysics (that the demonstration was ontological is not an occasion for doubt because it is only some ontological proofs that are fallacious). The reasons for doubt are (i) whether we accept the proof of existence of the void (ii) the magnitude of the implications (iii) skeptical doubt in the Cartesian sense may sharpen knowledge and certainty. Even though we have addressed item #i above, doubt and reason for doubt remain. However, crucially, the abstract metaphysics is consistent with experience (and science and reason).

Response to doubt

In view of doubt, we may therefore have two alternative attitudes to the abstract metaphysics (i) as a metaphysical postulate regarding the universe (ii) as existential principle of thought and action that is perhaps optimal in terms of the value of the expected outcome.

On method II—application of the metaphysics

Application of the real metaphysics

The application (use) of the real metaphysics is as follows. First, imagination and criticism are instrumental in seeing what is possible—i.e., in constructing possible concepts. This may be simple and naïve, yet powerful (as we have seen); it may be sophisticated and perhaps difficult, e.g., in constructing logics.

Second, received paradigms may be used critically, imaginatively, and reflexively to (i) enhance the construction of possible concepts (ii) to evaluate likelihood develop means of realization. We have already seen the use of evolutionary ideas and stable forms.

In the remainder of this section of the narrative, a range of paradigms and their use will be employed. The first few topics are terse as they review earlier developments.

Logic and science

The paradigms of logic and science have been employed in application and generalization of the conceptions of logic.

The void is not the quantum vacuum but has analogy to the vacuum and may be better understood in terms of the vacuum.

Philosophy of consciousness

The philosophy of consciousness was implicit in development of the concept of experience.

Form

Plato’s notion of form was generalized in conceiving (experiential) form and formation as a fundamental world process.

Determinism and indeterminism

The concepts of mechanism in physics underly the notion of stable deterministic form. But quantum theory suggest that form is a mix of stability and indeterminism, which, i.e., the idea, by the real metaphysics, obtains in the universe at large (note that the idea is suggested by quantum theory but not dependent on it, which is significant because indeterminism in quantum theory is questioned).

The determinism – indeterminism paradigm is seen to obtain in evolutionary theory. It may apply in the beginnings and histories of cosmoses.

Free will

The determinism – indeterminism paradigm may also apply in creativity and free will. A criticism of creativity and free will is (i) if the world is deterministic, there is no choice in principle, but (ii) if the world—mind—is merely random, there can in fact be no choice (this criticism was made by David Hume).

A response is that the indeterminism of the void may result in small scale initial structure. Then, via indeterminism structure builds on structure—the existing structure limits what further structure may emerge and conditions what emergents are relatively stable (thus the development of the universe and evolution are historical).

In free will, the brain has structure, but there are random micro thoughts that emerge, are restricted by existing structure, selected by that structure in process at a low level and by success of the thoughts at a high level of integration. Note that options arise not only in the environment but are also created in the mind of the individual. The foregoing explanation addresses the two objections to free will above.

Two observations are in order.

First, that while incremental emergence may be more likely, from the fundamental principle large step emergence (saltation) is possible and will occur, even if infrequently.

Second, while the explanation of free will above answers objections, and is a likely or heuristic explanation, it does not conclusively demonstrate that human will has freedom.

Does the problem of free will have a resolution?

Free will (i) may be better demonstrated by careful understanding of what free will is and careful understanding of mental process (there is no necessary reason that what we know about physics should determine what is real about freedom of will—or even of consciousness and experientiality; in fact, the direction of argument may be reversed—free will may be taken to imply that if fundamental physics applies to all brain function, then free will implies fundamental physics must have a mix of determinism and indeterminism) (ii) is necessitated by the fundamental principle and its importance in human life may be estimated via paradigm.

Let us reconsider arguments against free will, ~~this time in a complete version~~, (i) determinism implies no free will, (ii) randomness implies no free will, (iii) in any case, free will cannot be demonstrated for though will may seem to be free, that freedom may be an illusion (iv) some subjects report lack of freedom in commission of some acts and therefore lack free will (v) neurological experiments show subconscious response to some stimuli before the seeming conscious decision is made (vi) no one can choose to alter fundamental or necessary patterns of behavior which are ‘wired in’ or personality, once it has become established.

We have already disposed of i and ii. Item iv cannot be conclusive as it is the report of some subjects; the ethical concern regarding justice is already acknowledged by the justice systems of many countries in allowing that in some acts free will may have been impossible and that some individuals in some states lack freedom of will. Regarding the experiments, even the researchers argue that their conclusions are only possible for some situations. Regarding vi, the free will claim is that there is some choice, some choices may be difficult to see and execute but still possible; it is not said that fundamental patterns and personality can be changed but even that is not clear—I think it is pretty clear that with desire, persistence, and insight, some patterns can be changed to some degree.

What remains is iii—the argument that free will cannot be demonstrated. Well, that is just not known—what may be argued is that free will has not been demonstrated. Before proceeding, let us also note that lack of free will has not been demonstrated.

Perhaps the best ~~local~~ argument for free will is (a) to define free will as the choices we see, create, and execute (together with the general arguments, this argument approaches metaphysical necessity) (b) to observe that it is entirely consistent with fundamental metaphysics (c) to observe that there is nothing that rules it out.

Could something rule free will out? To deny it, would seem to make the claim of free will unscientific if we accept that to be scientific claim ought to be testable (‘falsifiable’) in principle. Even if that claim is generally correct, we can observe the following exception—but for cases of metaphysical necessity.

No perfect symmetry

No structures are ultimately stable or perfectly symmetric in form. The form of form is in process, sometimes at a relatively stable plateau and other times in rapid transition due to internal or external influence.

New paradigms

The fundamental principle and the real metaphysics constitute new paradigms.

Resources

The internet

The minimal system below links to further resources.

resources at the way of being website (http://www.horizons-2000.org)

Narrative the way of being (this essay) | complete version, in-process | influences (any originality rests on sources, and the works draw significantly from one another)

Anil Mitra amitra@horizons-2000.org | 707 407 9501 | 902 N STREET, EUREKA, CA 95501, USA

Plan

A planning section, at least implicit, will be part of the resources.

Commentary on use of ‘I’ ‘we’ ‘it is’

Comment 2. In another document; but note that there are non-egotistical uses of the word ‘I’. Get the use consistent.

The concepts

In process.

Comment 3. Though currently part of the plan, this will become permanent. The main concepts—see concepts.docm.