An orientation to my blog space

Outline

A picture of the world… The concept of the normal

Meaning and meanings… Experience and a ring of concepts; the ultimate character of the metaphysics… Proofs… Summary… Demonstration

Introduction

Some of the articles in this space stand alone. In others I draw significantly from my writing—the thoughts in the main site http://www.horizons-2000.org (home page) and, especially, the essay Journey in Being. The discussions and arguments there are, at least to me, fairly complex and elaborate, very multi-dimensional, and the results are fairly to very unfamiliar and, I believe, both deep and broad

I think it may be useful to some readers if the main results were gathered together in one place and written without the associated development of the topics, their elaboration, and their application to a broad variety of contexts

In this article, which I may modify as the need arises, I summarize some important and commonly used results from the site

It is not the goal here to provide precision of statement or of proof. However, it is crucial to be aware of the meanings I use, especially since common terms are used in unusual or modified senses. As I note in the Footnote on meaning and demonstration, the rigorous proofs are developed in Journey in Being; the footnote provides abbreviated comments on meaning and proof

Plan

In outline, this page contains the following three parts. A picture of the world shows a picture of the Universe that is far greater than is usually imagined. It is a picture that does violence to common sense. In The concept of the normal, common sense—and scientific sense—are regained; here it is shown that what is valid in common sense and science regarding this world is consistent with the larger picture and necessary within it; with the return of sense, it becomes clear that the original violence to sense was only apparent—that, after necessary adjustments, the universal and the local pictures mesh. Finally, the Footnote on meaning and demonstration provides an introduction to the importance of meaning in demonstration—meaning is analytic and synthetic or empirical—and the meanings the important concept and demonstrations of the significant theorems or results of Journey in Being

The main results

A picture of the world

The terms used for ‘picture of the world’ include metaphysics and cosmology

The main result is, perhaps, that I have developed a view of the world, the Universe, that is significantly new, that, as far as I can tell, encompasses more than any other view, and that is ‘real.’ Further, the view is not merely a Hegelian-style intuition but has been developed in ‘cold’ logic. In saying this, I am not suggesting that it is above doubt or that logic is essentially ‘cold’

The reader who is an expert in logic or science may wonder how logic might generate a world view; to this reader I shall say, read on to the end of this page: it is not particularly long. I would add that the while many of the ideas of the site are new, the words are old. I am constantly faced with the problem that a new word might mean nothing to a reader while an old word for a new or altered idea might mean too much. Mostly, I have taken the risk of using old terms so as to allow continuity with the tradition and so as to benefit from the richness of the tradition

There are other readers who may worry about the term logic—these readers may find the term remote and perhaps forbidding. How, they may ask, is it possible for something as austere and as specialized as logic be able to capture the essence of being—especially the feeling and the qualitative aspects of being. To this reader I repeat that old words are used with new meaning and that logic is not essentially cold; its contours may be minimal but it is this very minimality, in the new meaning, that permits all the detail and immediacy of the world

The idea of Logic, as it is used in Journey in Being, has two meanings. There is the traditional meaning—the one in which logic is about deduction, the one that suggests austerity and coldness. Then there is the new meaning—the meaning as used in Journey in Being. This new meaning is a minimal one in what it excludes. For example, where logic—I often use lower case form for traditional meanings and capitalize the first letter of the meanings that I use—makes no intrinsic reference to ‘feeling,’ Logic does not exclude it. The concept of Logic is specified in such a way that what is valid in logic is allowed and what is invalid is, at least implicitly, disallowed; but Logic allows effective reference to more than does logic. Further, Logic allows clarification of difficulties with the implementation of logic as deduction / proof / argument. These relations between Logic and logic, which show that one lies within the other and that both belong to the same area of meaning, justify the use of the term ‘Logic’ rather than one that is altogether different from ‘logic’

It will turn out that Logic is the—one—law of the Universe; this, however, requires a clarification of the meaning of ‘Universe,’ which, though apparently trivial will be significant

Additionally, I am not suggesting that the new view displaces any older views. Instead, it agrees with them in their domains of validity. The reader may wonder how this is possible. As it will be seen, the point is a logical one. And it is this same logical character that permits the all-encompassing character of the view

The Universe

When talking to one another, context is crucial; without tacit agreement as to the nature of the environment we may use the same words but they may refer to different—types of—things and we will not really understand one another

When we talk of ultimate things—the nature of the world and the kinds of being that populate it—there may be no agreement on the context and its nature. One person may think the world rides on the back of a turtle, another thinks it was—perhaps self—created in a big-bang, and a third holds it was created by divine intervention

How can we set up a context so as to be able to understand one another without requiring that we agree? This is what I am going to attempt. It will not require that one changes his or her core picture of the world but it will require flexibility of imagination. I ask that you consider that it is possible that the full picture is different from other pictures, e.g. traditional ones and perhaps your picture, especially at the edge and the limits of the other pictures

Consider the big-bang cosmology in which the universe started some ten to thirteen billion years ago in an extremely dense state at an extremely high temperature. The state was uniform and filled all space at the earliest time; subsequently the universe expanded to reach the present state and it may or may not begin to contract at some point in the future depending on the mass of the universe. Some cosmologists think that the real picture may be much larger and that what we call the universe is a ‘bubble’ amid many other bubble universes, perhaps in a weakly connecting background of space and time. The connection may be understood in terms of some initial deviation from perfect uniformity

Those who believe in the divine may think of Him or Her as residing outside this, our, bubble cosmological system. I’m not suggesting this as what actually obtains but just as a possibility. The turtle may be floating in a sea of space and time

The picture, then, is one of a myriad of universes u or u_i. What is the nature of the possible infinity of other universes? Do they satisfy the same laws of physics? As long as we are thinking in terms of possibility, the answer is that they need not satisfy the same laws; the variety of laws and of universes may include some that are very unlike ours. However, the question arises whether there is any condition or law that all universes must or do satisfy?

Before going further with this thought there is a confusion that should be cleared up. We talk of multiple universes. However we also need a term for all being—everything that exists or, more completely, everything that is, was or will be. Here the universe is also thought of as ‘everything that exists.’ For this meaning we will use an upper case U as in Universe. We may then say that the Universe is made up of universes that are my universe or cosmological system, u₁, and, possibly, many others u₂, u₃…

What, if any, law or laws must an individual u_i and U, the collection of u_i's satisfy? Let us suppose that we talk of what U may possibly be rather than what it is. Suppose we do not want to make the mistake of excluding a universe that may exist whether we know of it or not. Are there any conditions that such a universe must satisfy? It need not have three dimensional space, it may not be as stable as ours, its natural laws may be very different. Can a universe have a being that can do the impossible? That of course depends on what ‘impossible’ and ‘possible’ mean. Can a being violate our laws of physics? We may not know the laws of physics of our cosmos fully or precisely therefore it is very probable that we violate the laws as known; however, just by existing we follow the actual laws. Similarly, just by existing, a being in a universe with different physical laws violates our laws of physics. If ‘possibility’ is ‘physical possibility’ and if that means ‘satisfy the laws of physics that are known to us then’ of course the Universe would have beings that can do the—physically—impossible. Is it possible for a universe to be what it is not? It may be possible to become what it is not but it cannot be what it is not! I.e., every universe, every element of being must satisfy the laws of logic—the meaning of this statement and the meaning of ‘logic’ will be taken up shortly

Thus the maximal possible Universe is the collection of universes L that satisfy the laws of logic. What is the collection between the Universe, U, and the maximal universe L? Clearly U ≤ L. If we want to be on the ‘safe side’ and not exclude any possible element or universe then U = L. This will be demonstrated in the Footnote on meaning and demonstration

The picture or metaphysics

To understand the view or picture, consider your common sense view of the world or, perhaps, the scientific picture. Certain things or events happen, a wider range of things can happen, and there are other things that cannot happen. A ball that is released falls downward and not upward. Energy is conserved… and so on. Now, it is imaginable that the things that never happen in this world, in the scientific or common view, could happen if the world were different. If gravity were repulsive the ball would fall upward—if gravity were repulsive a world with the structure of this world would be unstable but that does not mean that repulsive ‘gravity’ is impossible. Ask yourself if there are any ‘regularities’ to this world that must hold, that necessarily hold, that would not be different no matter how much else was different. I can imagine a world in which there was no distinction between green and blue but I cannot imagine a world in which there was red but red was not red. Not only can I not imagine it—well perhaps I can but imagination is not the point. It is inherent in things that they cannot be other than what they are—at any given time. The ‘rule’ that says that something cannot be true and false—the ball cannot be red and not red—is a law of logic and this suggests that the one universal law—the law—is logic. Dry logic as the law of the universe? Readers who are familiar with modern logic will know that there is not one but there are many logics. However, we define Logic—upper case L—as the law that must be and is satisfied by all being and then seek out the relation between Logic and logic or between Logic and logics

The development and analysis of the relations between Logic and the logics is left to Journey in Being. Here, I develop and intuitive picture around the idea

The discussion of the previous paragraphs has at most suggested and not shown that Logic is the law of the Universe. For proof you may go to Journey in Being and read the chapters on Being, Metaphysics and Logic and meaning. Here I spell out the result without proof:

The one law of the Universe is Logic

Why have I spelt ‘Universe’ with an upper case U?

Consider the scientific view of the universe. There are certain physical laws that the universe is believed to ‘obey.’ Do these laws hold under all circumstances? History of science suggests not. However, modern physics itself shows that there are limits to its validity and that what is beyond those limits is not known. We cannot conclude from this that there is anything beyond the limits or that there is not. Ask, though, not what is implied but what is permitted under the laws of physics. We may expect that the next few developments will reveal modifications to physical law but perhaps that the main contours of the picture will not change. However, it is altogether within the realm of the possible, that the science of 4000 AD—if there is one—will reveal the universe to be vastly different than our present conception of it. Laws, variety of objects, the dimensions of the universe may all be vastly different. What we think of as the universe today may be very small compared to what we will know in 4000 AD. Perhaps we should reserve different words for the known universe and the actual universe. We shall call the known universe the ‘universe’ or this cosmological system and the entire universe the ‘Universe’

Since Logic is the one law of the Universe, any occurrence that involves no contradiction must obtain

(The actual statement involves noting some subtleties which are here passed over)

Every actual state of the universe is a necessary state

The entire system of mutually consistent descriptions describe states of the Universe

The only fictions are logical contradictions

Further:

The universe must enter the void state which is the absence of—manifest—being

The void state contains no being and this entails that it contains no form, pattern, or law

If from the void state, some state that falls under Logic is inaccessible the void would contain that law

From the void state every other state that entails no contradiction is accessible

What it means for a ‘state to entail or contain contradiction’ is explained in Journey in Being

It is not just that something may come from nothing but something must come from nothing

From one ‘consistent’ state, every other consistent state is accessible—this, I have labeled ‘absolute indeterminism’ because it means that no consistent state is inaccessible

In particular, from every state, the formed states must also be accessible. Thus absolute indeterminism and form are not only consistent but form must come out of formlessness and the void

But this much was known from Logic as the one Law of the universe

…

Some particular assertions may be made

The eternal recurrence of all states, imagined by Nietzsche, is necessary

This universe, i.e. our cosmological system—ones identical to it—will recur without limit

There is a universe in which there is a Jesus Christ that satisfies the Biblical story—from recurrence there is an infinity of such universes

… Of course on the assumption that the Biblical story of Jesus contains no inconsistencies. If there were inconsistencies the assertion would be true for a version that had been rendered consistent

Further, these arguments give no support to claims regarding the historical Christ on this earth except, and perhaps importantly, that but for logical and factual inconsistencies, claims regarding history cannot be impossible

The concept of the normal

The assertions so far are problematic in two ways

(1) Their significance for our world appears to be minimal. There are, in fact, two kinds of significance. The practical significance is well developed in Journey in Being and this includes application to ethical and other immediate concerns as well as to conceptual topics that are not as remote as the general conclusions above—Objects which concerns what we know and what there is, Logic and meaning which are seen in a new light, Cosmology which is the study of the variety and origins of being in general and the nature and origin of this cosmological system. The study of Mind and many classic problems and topics in the philosophy of mind receive much illumination (definitive solution.) The second kind of significance is that our knowledge of the Universe affects the way in which we conduct and appreciate our lives—although not as much as might be expected: it is argued in Journey in Being that the appreciation of this life and living well are good regardless of whether there is another world and that

(2) The assertions do violence to common sense and to the most fundamental of physical principles. An infinity of universes in which the Biblical story obtains? Some people think it absurd that to think that there is even one such universe. And although a Christian might derive some satisfaction from the idea, he or she may think that if the assertion is true on account of Logical principle, then, surely, a similar assertion is true of the Koran-story. If the realization is so ‘easy’ where is the value of faith that is hard won? The arguments in Journey in Being show that, especially for those who care, there are immense labors of value waiting for the zealous. And, clearly there is violence done to the concept of conservation of energy. However, some of the assertions above are not so foreign modern physics—for example, clearly the Universe that is spoken of is indeterministic as is modern quantum theory. Further, it follows from the assertions that that this cosmological system and its laws must obtain—recurrently—and therefore, to the degree that it is valid, local conservation of energy is consistent with the theory of the Universe (metaphysics.) Cosmologists may recognize that while their domain is immense, that immensity is relative to, say, our earth but is infinitesimal in relation to the space of Universe which may be called ‘logical space.’ And if there is absolute indeterminism, every form must obtain, i.e., arguments about the inconsistency of form and indeterminism are absolutely mistaken. What is more any consistent mechanism of formation must obtain though not invariably…

The final observations of the last paragraph suggest a solution to the problem of violence to our common conceptual systems. Although the Universe at large is infinite in its variety, there are and must be universes—e.g. systems that are local in time and space—that have, for the duration, their own being, apparently andor relatively independently of the larger Universe (it also follows that the universes emerge from and merge into the Universe)

It is highly pertinent to notice that the concept of the normal and its application are not imposed from without but arise from and within the picture of the Universe, i.e. from the Metaphysics

The behavior in which an ordered structure such as this—our—cosmological has being for a period of time is labeled ‘NORMAL’

(The issue that ‘time’ may not be universal is addressed in Journey in Being where the development of Metaphysics permits illumination of the nature of space and time or space-time and suggests potentially productive lines of investigation of space, time, being and origins)

Footnote on meaning and demonstration

The discussion in this article has involved a mix of plausibility argument, intuition and proof. For strict proof refer to Journey in Being

The reader will no doubt have a host of questions of various kinds. Again, go to Journey in Being in which I have attempted to address the issues that have occurred to me. If you have a criticism or an unanswered question, please write to me

An abbreviated account of the meanings and proofs now follows

Meaning and meanings

Many words have more than one use. The reader who wants to understand what I write will benefit from knowing the meaning that I intend to use. Those readers who are interested in my use may refer to Journey in Being. To make it easier for readers I may later compile a list of the important concepts and their ‘definitions’

While it is important for readers to understand my meanings, it is crucial, in order to develop understanding, for a writer to get the meanings of his or her terms ‘just’ right. Even though free-standing words may have multiple meanings in use, if the goal is to understand the world, the Universe as a whole, while the individual concepts must bear some relation to the world and the things in it, it is also necessary that the system of concepts should bear some relation to the Universe (the use of the upper case ‘U’ is explained below.) Therefore, the system of concepts as system must have some degree of coherence. The two requirements of individual meaning and system meaning vastly reduce the freedom in meaning. The goal of obtaining a—more—complete understanding or knowledge of the Universe further reduces the freedom in meaning. Readers may question the possibility of ‘complete’ knowledge—they may ask whether the Universe can be known. It is obvious that knowledge of the variety of being in the Universe would be an immense undertaking—at least; in Journey in Being it is shown that that is impossible; the impossibility is logical and is not the result of self-reference, quantum indeterminacy, or any aspect of the structure of the knower—the brain, the sense organs and so on; the impossibility follows from the demonstrated fact of unending variety. However, knowing the Universe as a whole, as an entity without regard to detail is possible and this too is shown in Journey in Being. If the reader is wondering why such a trivial fact should be worthy of demonstration, the response is that I have found that this and related proofs sharpen understanding, that such demonstration is the occasion for the development of powerful methods of demonstration, and, that even though what is proved may be trivial, the trivial may be the occasion for profound developments. If demonstration of trivial but universal-like propositions is the occasion for profound implications, surely it must be necessary to get the concepts right—and while this must involve ‘definitions’ with reasonable precision and adherence to the definitions, it is crucial to find what may be called ‘optimal’ meanings. What are the basic concepts and what are their optimal meanings? The process of arriving at an optimal system of concept-meanings has been experimental, one of trial and error. An idea for an altered meaning occurs; consequences are tried out; if the consequences do not work out just right—if there is inconsistency or awkward mesh with the world—the idea must be rejected; the process continues; other concepts enter into play…

Here are some important concepts and their meanings. Being—that which exists or has existence in its entirety; the phrase ‘has…entirety’ is explained in Journey in Being. Universe—all being: the ‘sum’ of being over all time and space; since time and space are not defined here, this definition is incomplete; the deficiency is remedied in Journey in Being… In everyday use, we talk of multiple and parallel universes; the reason for the upper case U in Universe is to distinguish the present meaning in which there is one and only one Universe. An implication of this concept of the Universe is that whatever meaning is assigned to it, God must be in the Universe; this point has significant consequences; for example if creation means creation by something external to what is created, the Universe has no creator and, therefore, in this meaning, God could not have created the Universe. Form—this term may require further work but is temporarily conceived as the aspect of a being that enables it's distinction from other beings; manifest being has form; however, ‘manifest’ is not a particularly important concept. Void—the absence of being; this means not just the absence of things but also, crucially, of form, pattern, and law; the implication is that the Universe does and must contain all form and so on and this, too, is crucial

Experience and a ring of concepts; the ultimate character of the metaphysics

What, however, is existence? And what of the various problems that have been raised in the history of thought regarding existence. These difficulties will be navigated, in Journey in Being, using the concept of experience which is, roughly, the immediate ‘subjective’ presence of the individual—mind—in the world. Another concept has been introduced; will the process end? Experience will be shown to be an irreducible element that requires no reduction; the common thought that foundations are impossible because there will always be some assumed ‘axiom’ or ‘axioms’ will be shown mistaken. A ring of concepts that includes Being, Existence, Experience, Universe, the Void, Form, and Logic will be shown to yield a metaphysics that is ultimate in the following ways (1) depth—there is no further ground of being although there may of course be alternate expressions of the same ground, (2) foundation—the picture is shown to be self-founded and the doubt that self-foundation is impossible is shown to be mistaken, (3) breadth—the only ‘beings’ that do not lie in the at least implicit scope of the metaphysics are those whose concept entails, (4) realism—of the picture of the universe revealed; this simultaneously shows that the Universe is the greatest universe in that possibility and actuality are identical

Proofs

Here is a little proof whose result is of utmost importance; here, the proof will omit some important details. 1. The complement of a domain is the part of the Universe that is not in the domain; domains exist; therefore complements exist; therefore the complement of the Universe exists; but the complement of the universe is the void; therefore the void exists. 2. Given a state of being whose conception involves no contradiction that does not emerge from the void, that would constitute a law of the void; therefore, all states of being emerge from the void; therefore, given a state of being, its annihilator state also emerges from the void; therefore, every state of being enters a state of being the void—and, in particular, the Universe enters a state of being the void from which, then, a manifest state of being must ‘re’ emerge; therefore, from every consistent state of being—i.e., one whose conception involves no contradiction—every other consistent state is accessible and accessed

Accessed when? The attendant issues of time and space are addressed in Journey in Being. This concern, however, is minor compared to the concern that should arise regarding ‘every consistent state is accessed from every other state.’ As explained above, deep and potentially paradoxical implications of this assertion are addressed and resolved in terms of the concept of the normal—whose meaning here bears little relation to the ‘normal concept of the normal’

Summary

Thus some important concepts of the developments are being, Universe, form, domain, the void, and the normal. These are, perhaps, the core concepts of the metaphysics of Journey in Being where a number of other important concepts emerge in the development, elaboration and application of the metaphysics which is itself a concept of some significance. A final idea of significance is demonstration which is introduced below

The discussion has shown the importance of a careful approach to development of a cohesive system of meaning. Once the proper system of meaning is established, proof appears to be trivial. This is somewhat illusory because the development of proof and meaning is interactive and iterative process

Demonstration

The reader may wonder how the introduction of meaning permits conclusions about the world. The answer is simple. Although the Universe has been introduced as a defined term, the concept has empirical content. The discussion of this point in Journey in Being is worked out with a level of care whose purpose is to enhance precision of meaning and proof and to facilitate development, elaboration and application of the metaphysics. Here, however, the empirical content may be pointed out trivially, if approximately, that the fact that you or I have experience demonstrates that there is being—the experience if not the object of experience—and therefore all being which is the Universe. Demonstration, as used here, is more than proof—it is joint analysis of meaning to establish empirical content, the establishment of optimal systems of meaning, and deductive proof to establish real consequences via optimal meaning and from empirical content. An interesting observation is that careful attention to meaning and proof results in the dual enhancement of both method and content. It is already clear that the approach is powerful. In Journey in Being, additional precision and elaboration of the system of meaning further bring out this power whose full potential begins to become revealed in a broad system of application to topics of central philosophical and human interest