Almost entirely ignored in the linguistic theorising on names and descriptions is a hybrid form of expression which, like definite descriptions, begin with 'the' but which, like proper names, are capitalised and seem to lack descriptive content. These are expressions such as the following, 'the Holy Roman Empire', 'the Mississippi River', or 'the Space Needle'. Such capitalised descriptions are ubiquitous in natural language, but to which linguistic categories do they belong? Are they simply proper names? Or are they definite (...) descriptions with unique orthography? Or are they something else entirely? This paper assesses two obvious assimilation strategies: (i) assimilation to proper names and (ii) assimilation to definite descriptions. It is argued that both of these strategies face major difficulties. The primary goal is to lay the groundwork for a linguistic analysis of capitalised descriptions. Yet, the hope is that clearing the ground on capitalised descriptions may reveal useful insights for the on-going research into the semantics and syntax of their lower-case or 'the'-less relatives. (shrink)

This paper addresses a certain objection to the quantificational theory of definite descriptions. According to this objection, the quantificational account cannot provide correct interpretations of definite descriptions embedded in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions and therefore ought to be rejected. In brief, the objection says that the quantificational theory is committed to the view that a sentence of the form “The F is G” is equivalent to the claim that there is a unique F and it is G, while the ascription (...) such as, e.g., “S wants the F to be G” is not equivalent to the statement that S wants there to be a F and for it to be G. I argue that this objection is invalid as it rests on a false assumption concerning the substitutivity of the relative clauses in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions. (shrink)

We pose two arguments for the view that sentences containing definite descriptions semantically express multiple propositions: a general proposition as Russell suggested, and a singular proposition featuring the individual who uniquely satisfies the description at the world-time of utterance. One argument mirrors David Kaplan's arguments that indexicals express singular propositions through a context-sensitive character. The second argument mirrors Kent Bach's and Stephen Neale's arguments for pluralist views about terms putatively triggering conventional implicatures, appositive, and nonrestrictive relative clauses. After presenting these (...) arguments, we show that rival explanations (appeals to implicature, referential use, presupposition, etc.) do not offer equally compelling explanations of the data, and defend the methodology employed in the arguments against some criticisms. (shrink)

This study examined the usage of the relative clause as a wealthy, crucial and complicated syntactic procedure in modern English Literature through the examination of Amaka Azuike’s Violated, a short play. The study determined the use of relative clauses in terms of their frequency of occurrence and type used, and it showed that English language speakers mostly attempt to use the "easier" type of the relative clauses to combine sentences for clarity of relaying messages. The paper extracted examples of relative (...) clauses from Violated to determine its aim of identifying the types of relative clauses used and the frequency of occurrence as well as the functions of the relative clauses in the play. The study also exposed the clarity the reader derives from the author’s use of relative clauses in creating a visible mental picture of issues presented in the story. The study adopted the descriptive grammar framework to account for the way relative clauses have been used in the play by the author. The study found that the author of the text used finite relative clauses and only one complex relative clause. Also, it discovered that the usage of relative clauses made the story quite state-of-the-art in style. (shrink)

A description of consciousness leads to a contradiction with the postulation from special relativity that there can be no connections between simultaneous event. This contradiction points to consciousness involving quantum level mechanisms. The Quantum level description of the universe is re- evaluated in the light of what is observed in consciousness namely 4 Dimensional objects. A new improved interpretation of Quantum level observations is introduced. From this vantage point the following axioms of consciousness is presented. Consciousness consists of two (...) distinct components, the observed U and the observer I. The observed U consist of all the events I is aware of. A vast majority of these occur simultaneously. Now if I were to be an entity within the space-time continuum, all of these events of U together with I would have to occur at one point in space-time. However, U is distributed over a definite region of space-time (region in brain). Thus, I is aware of a multitude of space-like separated events. It is seen that this awareness necessitates I to be an entity outside the space-time continuum. With I taken as such, a new concept called concept A is introduced. With the help of concept A a very important axiom of consciousness, namely Free Will is explained. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics and general relativity provide incompatible descriptions of time. In QM, states evolve unitarily with respect to an external time parameter; in GR, time is a coordinate in a dynamical spacetime geometry. We propose that both quantum and relativistic time emerge from a pre-geometric structure we call Prototime (PT): represented by an orthomodular lattice of consistency relations with zero von Neumann entropy at the fundamental level. PT has no background time, space, or metric—only algebraic relations of compatibility and (...) orthogonality. We formalize PT using an orthomodular lattice Lequipped with a foliation functor F: I →Ctx(L) that maps orderedi ndices to Boolean sublattices (classical contexts). A spectral redundancy functional Φs measures coherence preservation across embeddings. We show that: 1. Stable foliations satisfying Piron-Solèr conditions admit Hilbert-space representa- tions, recovering standard QM with Schrödinger dynamics via Stone’s theorem; 2. The partial order on decoherence events across foliations, together with a natural volume measure, reconstructs Lorentzian spacetime structure; 3. Time—both quantum (parameter along unitary flows) and relativistic (causal or- der)—supervenes on Φs-monotone decoherence gradients. Critically, we provide a computationally tractable implementation of Φs using spectral graph theory on mutual information networks (Bailey and Schneider, forthcoming). Testing this on simulated multi-agent systems—including combinatorial threshold-linear networks (CTLNs) that model graph-constrained neural dynamics—we demonstrate that Φs exhibits characteristic signatures during basin formation, attractor convergence, and coherence-to-classicality transitions. These results provide the first quantitative bridge between abstract PT formalism and testable physical predictions. We identify concrete empirical tests via quantum biology (photosynthetic complexes), quantum decoherence exper- iments, and neural ensemble dynamics. We also resolve the Wheeler delayed-choice experiment within PT, where apparent retrocausality dissolves because decoherence times vary across system components, creating asymmetric basin formation that only appears backward-causal when projected onto classical time. PT thus provides a kine- matical unification of QM and GR with testable predictions, offering a pre-geometric foundation for both fundamental physics and, potentially, theories of consciousness grounded in informational irreducibility. -/- (This piece is the formalism for our “Superpsychism” piece for our forthcoming target paper at The Journal of Consciousness Studies and our paper on Spectral Phi. Comments are very welcome.). (shrink)

NPs with intensional relative clauses such as 'the book John needs to write' pose a significant challenge for semantic theory. Such NPs act like referential terms, yet they do not stand for a particular actual object. This paper will develop a semantic analysis of such NPs on the basis of the notion of a variable object. The analysis avoids a range of difficulties that a more standard analysis based on the notion of an individual concept would face. Most importantly, unlike (...) the latter, the proposed analysis can be carried over NPs such as 'the number of people that fit into the bus', which describe tropes (particularized properties). (shrink)

Euclid defined the straight line as infinitely extended, yet never explained why it must be so. Descartes discovered "I think, therefore I am," yet never examined how the "I" thinks. Kant asserted that objects conform to our concepts, but did not question why space and time must be a priori forms of intuition. Einstein uncovered the relativity of relations, yet never asked why constant and infinite speed must belong to light. Since Newton, science has sought to explore reality, yet (...) has never confronted the logical circularity in the idea of the objective investigating the objective. This paper begins from an indubitable singularity—I exist—and proceeds through logical deduction to systematically address the nature of thinking, the formation of space and time, the essence of motion, and the origin of consciousness. From this foundation, we propose and demonstrate the axiom of descriptive relativity: Any determinate description necessarily depends on a logically prior benchmark unit. It is rigorously derived that: So-called "three-dimensional" space is not substantive but a logical degree of freedom introduced so that innumerable two-dimensional benchmark perspectives can reach descriptive consensus. Time is not a background flow but a logical marker identifying the progression of "my process" and "our process." Motion is not the displacement of substance but a syntactic representation in the phenomenal realm of underlying relational dynamics. Consciousness is not a mysterious entity but a self-referential function emerging from the relational flow—the "dynamic interaction between two essential substances." The cosmos reconstructed under this framework reveals that the objective world we perceive is in fact a consensus-rendered interface achieved by all benchmark perspectives across a dynamic spiral network. Within this architecture, the classical Ptolemaic system's dilemmas—such as planetary retrograde motion—are thoroughly resolved; quantum phenomena such as wave-particle duality and entanglement find natural explanations; and Kepler's three laws, gravitational phenomena, and even the light-speed limit are revealed as necessary manifestations of descriptive relativity acting at different levels. The paper ultimately demonstrates that the static structure of existence and the dynamic process of generation are essentially unified under descriptive relativity. A testable necessary corollary is thus rigorously derived: In the static reference frame of any planet, a spatiotemporal relation D³ / ( T_P)² = K_P holds exactly, where K_P is a constant determined by the planet's own perspective. This not only provides an empirical interface for the theory but also fundamentally illuminates a decentralized cosmos woven together by the legislative power of descriptive consensus. (shrink)

At present, psychiatric disorders are characterized descriptively, as the standard within the scientific community for communication and, to a certain extent, for diagnosis, is the DSM, now at its fifth edition. The main reasons for descriptivism are the aim of achieving reliability of diagnosis and improving communication in a situation of theoretical disagreement, and the Ignorance argument, which starts with acknowledgment of the relative failure of the project of finding biomarkers for most mental disorders. Descriptivism has also the advantage of (...) capturing the phenomenology of mental disorders, which appears to be essential for diagnosis, though not exhaustive of the nature of the disease. I argue that if we rely on the distinction between conceptions (procedures of identification) and concepts (reference-fixing representations), which was introduced in the philosophical debate on the nature of concepts, we may understand a limited but valid role for descriptive characterizations, and reply to common objections addressed by those who advocate a theoretically informed approach to nosology. (shrink)

NPs with intensional relative clauses such as 'the impact of the book John needs to write' pose a significant challenge for trope theory (the theory of particularized properties), since they seem to refer to tropes that lack an actual bearer. This paper proposes a novel semantic analysis of such NPs on the basis of the notion of a variable object. The analysis avoids a range of difficulties that an alternative analysis based on the notion of an individual concept would face.

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model are among the most successful theories in the history of physics. Their mathematical equations are well established, yet their mutual coexistence remains conceptually opaque. The theories are structurally different, but are nevertheless applied together within overlapping physical regimes. This paper presents a conceptual framework in which these theories are understood as arising from invariant-preserving \emph{projection operators}. Rather than proposing new equations or modifying existing dynamics, the framework addresses a different question: how (...) must underlying descriptions be reduced in order for the known equations of spacetime geometry, quantum theory, and gauge fields to emerge as effective and stable forms? The central idea is that each effective theory is associated with a class of admissible projection operators, but that admissibility alone is insufficient. The joint applicability of the theories imposes additional \emph{compatibility conditions} on families of projection operators. These conditions constrain how different effective descriptions can coexist without contradiction. Within this perspective, unification is reframed. It is not understood as a single fundamental theory or set of equations, but as a characterization of the structural conditions under which multiple effective theories can be valid at the same time. This version focuses exclusively on the conceptual architecture and ontological commitments of the framework. Formal operator constructions and mathematical realizations are developed separately. (shrink)

-/- Unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: A New Approach Based on the Universal Formula of Balance and Interconnected Systems -/- The challenge of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics has been one of the most profound unsolved problems in physics for over a century. General relativity, which governs the large-scale structure of the universe and explains the force of gravity, contrasts sharply with quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of subatomic particles on a minute scale. These (...) two theories operate under fundamentally different principles—one deterministic and continuous, the other probabilistic and discrete. The reconciliation of these frameworks has thus far eluded physicists, but new perspectives, grounded in deeper philosophical and universal principles, may hold the key to resolving this long-standing puzzle. -/- One such perspective can be drawn from Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, which emphasizes balance, interconnectedness, and the defect-free operation of systems. While this formula primarily applies to decision-making and societal systems, its principles offer a unique lens through which we might view the physical laws that govern the universe. In this essay, we will explore how the core tenets of Malicse’s universal formula—balance in nature, interconnectedness of systems, and the need for defect-free operation—could inform and potentially unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. -/- The Core of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics -/- General relativity provides a framework for understanding gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. It describes how massive objects like stars and planets bend the fabric of spacetime, and this bending dictates how other objects move in the presence of gravity. General relativity operates on macroscopic scales, governing the behavior of galaxies, black holes, and other large-scale cosmic structures. -/- In contrast, quantum mechanics deals with the microscopic scale, governing the behavior of subatomic particles. At this level, the laws of physics are governed by probabilities, with particles existing in superpositions of states until they are measured. Quantum mechanics introduces phenomena such as wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement, where particles can instantaneously affect one another across vast distances. -/- The difficulty in reconciling these two theories arises from their different conceptual foundations. General relativity is deterministic, describing smooth spacetime geometry, while quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, with particles existing in uncertain states. A unified theory would need to bridge the gap between these two, offering a description of gravity at both the macroscopic and quantum scales. -/- Malicse’s Universal Formula and Its Relevance to Unification -/- Malicse’s universal formula focuses on the notion of balance in nature, emphasizing that all systems must operate defect-free to function properly. This law of balance operates across all levels, from individual decisions to societal systems, and is predicated on the idea that everything in the universe is interconnected. According to Malicse, the systems—whether biological, mechanical, or even societal—must operate in harmony with each other to avoid disruptions that lead to imbalance. -/- This concept of balance offers a promising framework for reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. Let’s explore how the principles of balance and interconnectedness can help unify these two domains. -/- A. Gravity as a Balanced System -/- In general relativity, gravity is understood as the curvature of spacetime, where mass and energy distort the fabric of spacetime itself. If we apply Malicse’s law of balance, we might consider gravity as a force that arises to maintain the balance of spacetime. Spacetime, under the influence of mass, should curve in a way that ensures the overall stability and harmony of the universe. If spacetime were to curve excessively (such as at singularities, where the curvature becomes infinite), this would represent an imbalance in the system. -/- This principle could suggest that gravity is not simply an effect of mass, but a balancing force that ensures the defect-free operation of spacetime. If we view spacetime as a system that must remain defect-free, the resolution of singularities and other discrepancies in general relativity might be found in a deeper understanding of balance in nature. -/- B. Interconnectedness in Quantum Systems -/- Quantum mechanics deals with the smallest scales of matter, where particles exhibit behavior that appears disconnected from classical notions of space and time. Quantum particles, however, are not isolated entities—they are deeply interconnected, particularly evident in phenomena such as quantum entanglement. This entanglement implies that particles can instantaneously influence each other across vast distances, defying classical ideas of locality. -/- Malicse’s principle of interconnectedness can provide a deeper understanding of these quantum phenomena. Just as individual decisions in a society are interconnected, quantum particles could be seen as parts of a larger, balanced system, where their behavior is shaped by and contributes to the overall harmony of the universe. If we view quantum entanglement as a form of feedback between particles, we might interpret it as an inherent interconnectedness that ensures balance within the quantum realm. -/- The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where particles exist in superpositions until measured, could also be understood through the lens of balance. In a balanced system, possibilities must exist in equilibrium, and the collapse of a quantum state into a definite outcome upon observation could be seen as a mechanism for maintaining the balance of possible states within the system. -/- C. Unifying Gravity and Quantum Fields -/- At the heart of unification lies the idea that gravity and quantum mechanics are not separate or fundamentally different forces but are interconnected parts of the same system. According to Malicse’s universal formula, everything in the universe operates as part of an interconnected system, and any imbalance within one system will affect the whole. In this view, gravity could be understood as a quantum force—one that, like other quantum forces, operates in harmony with quantum fields. -/- If gravity operates within the framework of quantum mechanics, we might expect it to be mediated by a particle, known as the graviton, which would function similarly to the quantum fields that mediate other forces (such as the photon for electromagnetism). The graviton, like other quantum particles, would be subject to the same feedback loops and principles of balance that govern quantum systems. This insight could lead to a new way of thinking about quantum gravity—where the force of gravity is not merely the curvature of spacetime but a quantum field that interacts with other quantum fields in a way that restores balance to the system. -/- D. The Mathematical Formulation of Unification -/- To advance towards unification, we would need to develop mathematical models that incorporate Malicse’s principles of balance and interconnectedness. One possible approach could involve modifying the Einstein-Hilbert action in general relativity to account for quantum feedback mechanisms. Similarly, the Schrödinger equation, which governs quantum systems, could be modified to include terms that describe the gravitational influence of quantum fields. This would create a hybrid theory where gravity and quantum mechanics are treated as complementary forces that work together to maintain the balance of the universe. -/- E. Practical Implications for the Future of Physics -/- The unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics would revolutionize our understanding of the universe. It would not only explain the behavior of the cosmos on both the largest and smallest scales but also offer new insights into the nature of spacetime, black holes, and the origins of the universe itself. Malicse’s formula, by emphasizing balance and interconnectedness, could provide the conceptual foundation for this new unified theory, guiding future physicists toward a deeper understanding of how the universe operates at every scale. -/- Conclusion -/- The unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics remains one of the most significant challenges in modern physics. By applying the principles of balance, interconnectedness, and defect-free systems from Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, we may be able to shed new light on the relationship between gravity and quantum forces. Through this lens, both general relativity and quantum mechanics can be seen as interconnected aspects of the same unified system, each working to maintain the overall balance of the universe. Further theoretical and mathematical exploration of this idea could ultimately lead to a deeper, more complete theory of everything—a theory that resolves the discrepancies between these two pillars of modern physics and opens the door to a new era of scientific understanding. -/- . (shrink)

Aristotle classifies opposition (ἀντικεῖσθαι) into four groups: relatives (τὰ πρός τι), contraries (τὰ ἐναντία), privation and possession (στρέσις καὶ ἓξις) and affirmation and negation (κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις). (Cat. , 10, 11b15-23) His example of relatives are the double and the half. Aristotle’s description of relatives as a kind of opposition is as such: ‘Things opposed as relatives are called just what they are, of their opposites (αὐτὰ ἃπερ ἐστι τῶν ἀντικειμένων λέγεται) or in some other way in relation to them. (...) For example, the double is called just what it is double of the other (οἷον τὸ διπλάσιον, αὐτὸ ὃπερ ἐστίν, ἑτέρου διπλάσιον λέγεται). Again, knowledge and the knowable are opposed as relatives, and knowledge is called just what it is, of the knowable, and the knowable too is called just what it is, in relation to its opposite, knowledge; for the knowable is called knowable by something-by knowledge.’ (Cat., 10, 11b24-30) 2) Senses of relatives In Met., Δ, 1020b26-32 Aristotle distinguishes three senses of relatives: i) That which contains something else many times to that which is contained many times in something else, and that which exceeds to that which is exceeded. E.g. double to half ii) The active to the passive; e.g. that which can heat to that which can be heated iii) The measurable to the measure, e.g. the knowable to knowledge and the perceptible to perception. 3) Relatives and contraries Aristotle’s discussion of relatives is unbelievably ambiguous. While he enumerates relatives besides contraries, privation-possession and affirmation-negation as four types of opposition (Cat., 10, 11b15-23), not only does not he restrict relatives to oppositions but he also does not totally differentiate it from contraries. Aristotle distinguishes between two senses of relatives one of which is contraries: ‘We have distinguished elsewhere the two senses in which relatives are so called-some as contraries (ὡς ἐναντία), others as knowledge to things known, a term being called relative because what is said one to the other is said by the other to itself (τῷ λέγεσθαί τι ἄλλο πρὸς αὐτό). (Met., I, 1056b34-1057a1) It seems that this differentiation is the same as, and maybe the one he himself refers to, the differentiation between the second and the third senses of relatives in Met., Δ, 1021a27-32: ‘Relative terms which imply number or capacity, therefore, are all relative because their very essence includes in its nature a reference to something else, not because something else is related to it (πρός τι πὰντα ἐστὶ πρός τι τῷ ὃπερ ἐστὶν ἄλλου λέγεσθαι αὐτὸ ὃ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῷ ἄλλο πρὸς ἐκεινο); but that which is measurable or knowable or thinkable is called relative because something else is related to it. For the thinkable implies that there is thought of it, but the thought is not relative to that of which it is the thought; for we should then have said the same thing twice.’ Although Aristotle confirms contrariety in relatives (e.g. virtue to vice and knowledge to ignorance), he denies that there is a contrary ‘to every relative’ as there can be no contrary to what is double or treble. (Cat., 7, 6b15-19) The fact that Aristotle dedicates one sense of relatives to contraries means that the fourfold division of oppositions is not such a strict division without any kind of community between them. In his example of the first sense, however, Aristotle says: ‘One and number are in a sense opposed, not as contrary, but as we have said some relative terms are opposed; for inasmuch as one is measure and the other measurable, they are opposed.’ (Met., I, 1057a4-6) Now, the question is: Is Aristotle’s first sense of relative a contrary or not? Aristotle tells us that the opposition in this sense of relatives is the opposition of measure and measurable. The second sense has two differences with the first one: i) it is not a contrary and ii) what is said by one of the relatives to the other is also said by the latter to the former. To differentiate it from the first sense, when the one is the measure of the other, the latter will be the measure of the former as well: ‘But though knowledge is similarly spoken of as related to the knowable, the relation does not work out similarly for while knowledge might be thought to be the measure, and the knowable the thing measured, the fact is that all knowledge is knowable, but not all that is knowable is knowledge, because in a sense knowledge is measured by the knowable.’ (Met., I, 1057a7-12) Aristotle’s assertion at Met., I, 1057a36-37 that ‘of relative terms, those which are not contrary have no intermediate’ ensures us that we must take the first sense as contraries. Here he mentions a criterion of differentiation between two senses: while the first sense accepts intermediates (as, for example, great and small do), the second one does not. (Met., I, 1057a37-b1) It seems, however, that it is only the second sense that is the essential sense of relatives because the first sense, Aristotle says, is an accidental sense: ‘The one is opposed then to the many in numbers as measure to things measureable; and these are opposed as relatives which are not from their very nature relatives.’ (Met., I, 1056b32-34) 4) Definition of relative Aristotle’s first definition of the category of relative (πρός τι) is as such: ‘We call relative all such things as are said to be just what they are, of or than other things, or in some other way in relation to something else (Πρός τι δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται, ὃσα αὐτὰ ἃπερ ἐστὶν ἓτερων εἶναι λέγεται, ἢ ὁπωσοῦν ἄλλως πρὸς ἓτερον). (Cat., 7, 6a36-37; repeated almost without any change in: Cat., 7, 6b6-8) Aristotle’s examples are larger (because it is what it is than something else (τοῦθ᾿ ὃπερ ἐστὶν ἑτέρου λέγεται) that means it is called larger than something) and double. (Cat., 7, 6a37-b1) Aristotle’s aporia regarding relative is about their relation with substances: whether no substance is spoken of as a relative, or whether this is possible with regard to some secondary substances. (Cat., 7, 8a13-15) In the case of primary substances, it seems that he is confident, at least at first, that neither themselves nor their parts are spoken of in relation to anything: neither an individual man is called someone’s individual man nor an individual hand is called someone’s individual hand (but someone’s hand). (Cat., 7, 8a15-21) Although it is obvious that most of secondary substances are not spoken of as relatives (a man is not called someone’s man) (Cat., 7, 8a21-25), there are some with them there is room for dispute: a head is someone’s head and a hand is called someone’s hand, which seem to be relatives. (Cat., 7, 8a25-28) Aristotle thinks this must be due to the previous definition’s being problematic: with that definition ‘it is either exceedingly difficult or impossible to reach the solution that no substance is spoken of as a relative.’ (Cat., 7, 8a28-32) Thus, Aristotle changes his previous definition to a new one: ‘Those things are relatives for which being is the same as being somehow related to something’ (ἔστι τὰ πρός τι οἷς τὸ εἶναι ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ πρός τί). (Cat., 7, 8a32-34) Although the first definition does indeed apply to all relations, its problem is that it does not take ‘their own being relative’ (τῷ πρός τι αὐτοῖς εἶναι) the same as ‘their being what they are of other things’ (ἃπερ ἐστὶν ἑτέρων λέγεσθαι). (Cat., 7, 8a34-37) Although this change of definition is to exclude all substances from being relative, what Aristotle says in Topics (To., Z, 8, 146a39- ), seems to ignore this: ‘For of everything relative the substance is relative to something else, seeing that the being of every relative term is identical with being in a certain relation to something.’ 5) Necessary knowledge of the related Knowledge of that in relation to which a relative is spoken of is necessary when one knows the relative: it is impossible to know a relative and at the same time not to know that in relation to which it is spoken of. (Cat., 7, 8a37-b3) To prove this, Aristotle adheres to the definition of relatives: ‘If someone knows of a certain ‘this’ that it is a relative, and being for relatives is the same as being somehow related to something, he knows that also to which this is somehow related.’ (Cat., 7, 8a37-b3; cf. 7, 8b3-15 for Aristotle’s examples) This necessary knowledge of the related, if we call it so, dedicates Aristotle an epistemological reason, besides the ontological one mentioned in his definition, for the exclusion of substances. As we noted in our discussion of Aristotle’s definition of relatives, he changed his first definition to exclude all substances from being relatives. Therefore, it is evident that for him relatives must not include substances, either primary or secondary. Aristotle does have no problem with primary substances simply because it is evident for him that they cannot be relatives. The same can be said about most of the secondary substances as well. The problem for which he changed the definition of substances was about some secondary substances like ‘head’ or ‘hand’: the fact that it is possible to know a hand or head without necessarily knowing definitely that in relation to which it is spoken of proves that they are not relatives. (Cat., 7, 8b15-21) 6) Reciprocation Aristotle regards reciprocation (ἀντιστρέφειν) necessary in all relations: ‘All relatives are spoken of in relation to correlatives that reciprocate.’ (Cat., 7, 6b28-29; cf. Cat., 10, 12b21-24) The sense of reciprocation is clear by his own examples: ‘The slave is called slave of a master and the master is called master of a slave; the double double of a half, and the half half of a double.’ (Cat., 7, 6b29-31) Reciprocation of relatives is so necessary that if there seems that we do not have reciprocation, it must necessarily be due to a mistake and that in relation to which something is spoken of must have not been given properly. (Cat., 7, 6b36-7a1) Aristotle’s example is this: If a wing is given as of a bird, ‘bird of a wing’ does not reciprocate because it has not been given properly: a wing is of a winged and not of a bird; a wing is wing of a winged and a winged is winged with a wing. (Cat., 7, 7a1-5) Even if we do not have a proper name to have a proper reciprocation, Aristotle points, we must invent names. (Cat., 7, 7a5-15 and 7b10-14) Thus, having proper names is the condition of necessary reciprocation: ‘All relatives are spoken of in relation to correlatives that reciprocate, provided they are properly given.’ (Cat., 7, 7a22-23) This condition is also said in another way: there is no reciprocation if a relation is given as related to some chance thing or to something that is accidentally the related thing like when, for example, a slave is given as of a man or a biped instead of being given as of a master. (Cat., 7, 7a25-31) 7) Simultaneity of relatives Aristotle believes that in most cases relatives are simultaneous: double and half or master and slave must exist at the same time: when there is a half, there is a double and when there is a slave, there is a master. (Cat., 7, 7b10-14) However, this receives some exceptions like knowable, which is prior and can, thus, exist before and without knowledge. (Cat., 7, 7b22-27) What approves this non-simultaneousness for Aristotle is that the destruction of knowledge does not carry the knowable to destruction. (Cat., 7, 7b27-31) The same is said about perception and perceptible. (Cat., 7, 7b35-8a9) Aristotle attaches simultaneity to reciprocation. This reciprocation, however, is not a simple reciprocation but ‘reciprocation as to implication of existence’ (ἀντιστρέφει μὲν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι) with the condition that neither be in any way the cause of the other’s existence. (Cat., 13, 14b27-29; the same is said also at: Cat., 13, 15a4-11) Aristotle’s examples are the double and the half because when there is a double there is a half and when there is a half there is a double but neither is the cause of the other’s existence. (Cat., 13, 14b29-32) (We have ‘reciprocation as to implication of existence’ also in relation between genus and species but it seems that this has a totally different sense there. 8) Having no independent reality That a relative cannot be a substance, either a primary or a secondary substance, is discussed in our review of both the definition of relatives and their reciprocation. The differentiation of relatives and substances are so deep for Aristotle that after questioning the possibility of any common element or principle for substances and relatives (Met., Λ, 1070a33-36), he asserts that no substance, on the one hand, is the element of relatives and none of the relatives, on the other hand, is the element of substances. (Met., Λ, 1070b3-4) Aristotle does not, however, suffice to this. For him, relatives have the least substantiality, which is, for him, almost the same as reality: ‘The relative is least of all categories a real thing (φύσις τις) or substance, and less than quality and quantity; and the relative is an affection of quantity.’ (Met., M, 1088a22-25) Aristotle believes that an evidence of this least reality (ὄν) and substantiality is that relatives have no proper generation, destruction or movement while each of substance, quality and quantity have them. (Met., M, 1088a29-35) Moreover, neither motion (Phy., E, 1) nor any kind of change is applicable to relatives so that relatives are neither themselves alterations nor the subject of alterations (Phy., Z, 3) and the process of losing and acquiring states cannot be considered as alterations because these are the result of the alterations of non-relative things of which they are states. (Phy., Z, 3) Relative is not even matter but is something different. (Met., M, 1088a24-25) The reason is that the matter is potentially of a nature but relative is neither potentially nor actually of a nature. (Met., M, 1088b1-2) To understand the status of relatives in Aristotle’s world, we have to make a tripartite classification; a classification that though Aristotle himself did not make, his assertions approve it. Based on this division, there are three kinds of being in the world: i) Independent beings: This class includes only substances. ii) Dependent beings: This class includes qualities and quantities. Although they are real, they are ‘in’ substances and cannot exist without them. iii) Super dependent beings: This class includes at least relatives. The fact that relatives must be considered in a third class different from substances, on the one hand, and qualities and quantities, on the other hand, is obvious not only from the previously mentioned texts (Met., M, 1088a22-25, 29-35 and b1-2) in which relatives’ reality is considered less than all substances, qualities and quantities and different from matters but from this text: ‘For there is nothing either great or small, many or few, or, in general, relative which is not something (τι ὄν) different (ἓτερον) [that is also] many or few or great or small’. (Met, N, 1088a27-30) Therefore, super dependent beings are those beings that must necessarily be also something else, i.e. an independent or dependent being. Ackrill (1963, 99) points that some of the words used by Aristotle to exemplify relational entities, e.g. slave, are endowed with a complete sense and do not need to be supplemented by a correlate. (Thus, the linguist criterion of incompleteness would be deficient. Some other instances of relative entities like ‘state,’ ‘knowledge’ and perception are not necessarily followed by the genitive case. 9) Extent of relatives What is the extent of relatives? What are or are not included in relatives either among categories or among other concepts? Which concepts or things Aristotle regard as relative? i) Aristotle includes state (ἓξις) and position (θέσις) among relatives. (Cat., 7, 6b2-6; Cat., 7, 6b11-14; Cat., 8, 11a20-24) ii) Although relative is not matter but is something different (Met., M, 1088a24-25), matter is ‘non-being’ only in virtue of an attribute (Phy., A, 9) and is, thus, a relative term. (Phy., B, 2, 194b9) 10) Property and relativity Aristotle draws a contrast between two types of giving a property, absolute and relative: ‘A property is given either in its own right and for always or relative to something else and for a time.’ (To., E, 1, ^128b15-18) Being a civilized man, for example, is an absolute property for man while to command is a relative property for the soul. The absolute property, however, is considered not only potential to be discussed or observed in relation to many things or periods of time, it in fact ‘belongs to its subject relatively to every single thing that there is, so that if the subject is not distinguished relatively to everything else, the property will not have been given correctly.’ (To., E, 1, 129a18-20) Therefore, an absolute property is a property that ‘is ascribed to a thing in comparison with everything else and distinguishes it from everything else.’ (To., E, 1, 128b33- ) An absolute property is, then, absolutely relative and not conditionally relative, i.e. relative to a specific thing. This is what differentiates it from a relative property, which is relative to a certain thing: ‘A property relative to something else is one which separates its subject off not from everything else but from a particular definite thing.’ (To., E, 1, 128b33- ) One important difference between absolute and relative properties is that while an accident can be a relative property, it can never be an absolute property. (To., I, 5, ^102b20-36) For example, sitting, which is an accident, is also a property relatively to those who are not sitting. (To., I, 5, ^102b20-36) 11) Platonic theories as relatives At least three of Platonic theories Aristotle attaches to relatives: i) Forms ‘It seems that a Form is always spoken of in relation to a Form-this desire itself is for the pleasure itself, and wishing itself is for the good itself.’ (To., Z, 8, 147a^10) Moreover, the theory of Forms takes the relative prior to the absolute as, for example, it takes not the dyad but the number as first. (Met., A, 990b15-17) Aristotle believes that this is against not only the necessities of the case but only the Platonists’ opinion because Forms must be substances only, if they can be shared. (Met., A, 990b27-29) There are, however, things like ‘equal’ which are only relative: they are only in relation to something else. Now the theory that ideas are supposed to be substances only should entail the substantiality of merely relatives. The reason being that Forms are not shared incidentally but each thing shares in that which is not predicated of a subject. (Met., A, 990b29-31) ii) Unequal The Platonic theory of great and small or unequal, which we know more from Aristotle and has, in Platonic philosophy, a role like that of matter in Aristotelian philosophy, is also called relative by Aristole. (Met., M, 1089b4-15) iii) Potentiality Aristotle says that Platonists take what potentially is a ‘this’ and a substance but not actually so a relative because it is ‘neither potentially the one or being, nor the contradictory of the one nor of being, but one among beings.’ (Met., N, 1089b15-20) 12) All things as relative Aristotle attaches the theory that ‘everything is true’ to relativity and thinks the consequence of believing in this theory is that everything is true: ‘He who says all things that appear are true, makes all things relative.’ (Met., Γ, 1011a17-20) 13) Genera and species of relatives There are some genera, Aristotle hints, that are relative but their species are not relative. In such cases, the genera are spoken of in relation to something, but none of the particular cases are so spoken. (Cat., 8, 11a20-36) Aristole’s examples are knowledge and grammar of which the former is a relative but the latter is a quality. The consequence of this is that there is nothing absurd for a thing to be in both genera of relative and quality. (Cat., 8, 11a37- ) However, when the species is a relative, the genera will be a relative too. (To., Δ, 4, 124b15- ) Moreover, Aristotle asserts that ‘the differentiae of relative terms are themselves relative.’ (To., Z, 6, 145a14-16) Things that are called relative are called so, Aristotle says, ‘because the classes that include them are of this sort, e.g. medicine is thought to be relative bcs its genus, knowledge, is thought to be relative,’ (Met., Δ, 1021b4-6) 14) Relatives as indefinite? Fabio Morales takes 1088a29-b1 as a textual evidence supporting the assumption that Aristotle regarded relational terms as indefinite. (shrink)

Much of the century-old debate surrounding the status of thermodynamics in relativity has centered on the search for a suitably relativistic temperature; recent works by Chua (2023) and Chua and Callender (forthcoming) have suggested that the classical temperature concept – consilient as it is in classical settings – ‘falls apart’ in relativity. However, these discussions typically assume an unproblematic Lorentz transformation for – specifically, the Lorentz invariance of – the pressure concept. Here I argue that, just like the (...) classical temperature, the classical concept of pressure breaks down in relativistic settings. I discuss how this might suggest a new thermodynamic limit – a u → 0 limit – without which an unambiguous thermodynamic description of systems doesn’t emerge. (shrink)

Note: The philosophical ideas and arguments first presented in this work have now been fully integrated, significantly refined, and expanded within a unified theoretical framework. For the most current and comprehensive presentation of this research program, please refer to the new publication: The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes This new work serves as the definitive and complete expression of this philosophical system, incorporating and superseding the foundational concepts initially (...) explored here. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the similarity between Wittgenstein’s use of thought experiments and Relativity Theory. I begin with introducing Wittgenstein’s idea of “thought experiments” and a tentative classification of different kinds of thought experiments in Wittgenstein’s work. Then, after presenting a short recap of some remarks on the analogy between Wittgenstein’s point of view and Einstein’s, I suggest three analogies between the status of Wittgenstein’s mental experiments and Relativity theory: the topics of time dilation, the search for (...) invariants, and the role of measuring tools in Special Relativity. This last point will help to better define Wittgenstein’s idea of description as the core of his philosophical enterprise. (shrink)

The Motion-Time Paradox (M-T) posits that motion and time—two fundamental pillars of knowable reality—are interdependent yet cannot exist independently, creating an inescapable logical loop. This paper analyzes four scenarios regarding their relationship, each revealing inherent contradictions that challenge ideological frameworks such as materialism, idealism, and dualism. The result is the "ultimate negation"—not the annihilation of reality itself, but the collapse of current understandings based on motion and time. Despite facing 14 counterarguments from physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, loop quantum gravity), (...) philosophy (Kant, non-dualism), and mathematics, the M-T paradox remains logically consistent. It poses the question: Is human knowledge reaching a limit that requires a new foundation to transcend? This is an invitation to reshape reality, pointing toward a concept beyond motion and time. (shrink)

Abstract: At present, psychiatric disorders are characterized descriptively, as the standard within the scientific community for communication and, to a cer- tain extent, for diagnosis, is the DSM, now at its fifth edition. The main rea- sons for descriptivism are the aim of achieving reliability of diagnosis and improving communication in a situation of theoretical disagreement, and the Ignorance argument, which starts with acknowledgment of the relative fail- ure of the project of finding biomarkers for most mental disorders. Descrip- tivism (...) has also the advantage of capturing the phenomenology of mental dis- orders, which appears to be essential for diagnosis, though not exhaustive of the nature of the disease. I argue that if we rely on the distinction between conceptions (procedures of identification) and concepts (reference-fixing representations), which was introduced in the philosophical debate on the nature of concepts, we may understand a limited but valid role for descrip- tive characterizations, and reply to common objections addressed by those who advocate a theoretically informed approach to nosology. (shrink)

General Relativity (GR) is locally exact in high-closure environments and remains the correct dynamical description there. This paper argues, however, that the large-scale universe is not well described as “empty spacetime” plus perturbative sources, and that treating GR as a universal global inference engine commits a category error. The cosmic web is instead a manifestation of state-dependent spacetime structure, not merely matter evolving within a passive vacuum. I present Variable Stiffness Gravity (VSG), a thesis in which the effective rigidity (...) of spacetime depends on a macroscopic state variable of the matter sector. In under-constrained environments—most cleanly, cosmic voids—spacetime relaxes into a low-stiffness phase, and the inferred gravitational response exhibits a regime change below a universal acceleration scale a_0. The framework makes a single near-term, decisive prediction: in conditioned void samples binned by redshift z, void scale R_v, and void depth δ_v, the interior weak-lensing response obeys a universal non-linear exponent α=1/2rather than linear sourcing α=1. The framework further requires closure: the same parameters that fit void lensing must fit void dynamics in matching bins. If late-2026 void lensing and dynamics data recover linear sourcing in conditioned bins, or if closure fails, VSG is falsified. If the non-linear exponent and closure are confirmed, the conclusion is not merely a parameter adjustment to GR, but that “empty space” is the wrong ontology for cosmic structure. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the similarity between Wittgenstein’s use of thought experiments and Relativity Theory. I begin with introducing Wittgenstein’s idea of “thought experiments” and a tentative classification of different kinds of thought experiments in Wittgenstein’s work. Then, after presenting a short recap of some remarks on the analogy between Wittgenstein’s point of view and Einstein’s, I suggest three analogies between the status of Wittgenstein’s mental experiments and Relativity theory: the topics of time dilation, the search for (...) invariants, and the role of measuring tools in Special Relativity. This last point will help to better define Wittgenstein’s idea of description as the core of his philosophical enterprise. (shrink)

The emergent properties are properties referring to a system as a whole, but they do not make sense to its elements or parts being small enough. Furthermore certain emergent properties are reducible to those of elements or relevant parts often. The paper means the special case where the description of the system by means of its emergent properties is much simpler than that of its relevant elements or parts. The concept is investigated by a case study based on statistic thermodynamics, (...) general relativity, and quantum mechanics. (shrink)

Philosophy of science has long operated under the implicit assumption that genuine explanation requires reduction to more fundamental levels of description. This assumption has been reinforced by the historical success of microphysical explanation, leading to the widespread view that higher-level descriptions are at best heuristic and at worst illusory. At the same time, actual scientific practice relies irreducibly on multi-level explanations-spanning physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and the social sciences-without treating these levels as interchangeable or eliminable. This tension reveals a conceptual (...) gap: there is no widely accepted ontological account explaining how multiple descriptive levels can coexist without contradiction, redundancy, or ontological inflation. Reductionism explains inter-level relations but struggles to justify the continued explanatory legitimacy of higher-level descriptions. This paper proposes a structural resolution through the Three-Circle Ontology, a meta-ontological framework that distinguishes explanation from reduction by grounding levels of description ontologically rather than methodologically. Within this framework, explanatory adequacy is understood as level-relative satisfaction of structural constraints, not as elimination in favor of a privileged fundamental description. The account does not introduce a new scientific methodology, does not challenge the empirical success of reductionist explanations, and does not endorse metaphysical pluralism. Its primary contribution is a conceptual reframing of explanation as structurally constrained, level-relative understanding rather than ontological reduction. (shrink)

Despite the widespread assumptions on the compatibility between non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity, there still remains a considerable amount of unresolved problems to which few authors explicitly pay attention. Most of them involve the aim of coherently achieving a relativistic description of quantum collapses and quantum entanglements. These processes seem to challenge our present picture of the physical world in terms of space-time structures.

A description of consciousness leads to a contradiction with the postulation from special relativity that there can be no connections between simultaneous event. This contradiction points to consciousness involving quantum level mechanisms. The Quantum level description of the universe is re- evaluated in the light of what is observed in consciousness namely 4 Dimensional objects. A new improved interpretation of Quantum level observations is introduced. From this vantage point the following axioms of consciousness is presented. Consciousness consists of two (...) distinct components, the observed U and the observer I. The observed U consist of all the events I is aware of. A vast majority of these occur simultaneously. Now if I were to be an entity within the space-time continuum, all of these events of U together with I would have to occur at one point in space-time. However, U is distributed over a definite region of space-time (region in brain). Thus, I is aware of a multitude of space-like separated events. It is seen that this awareness necessitates I to be an entity outside the space-time continuum. With I taken as such, a new concept called concept A is introduced. With the help of concept A a very important axiom of consciousness, namely Free Will is explained. Libet s Experiment which was originally seen to contradict Free will, in the light of Concept A is shown to support it. A variation to Libet s Experiment is suggested that will give conclusive proof for Concept A and Free Will. (shrink)

If you have enjoyed any of the 7 (seven) other books I have published over 20 years, including literally thousands of pages of mathematical and topological concepts, Python programs and conceptually expanding papers, please consider buying this book for $20.00 on google play books. -/- Introduction: -/- Though the following pages provide extensive exposition and dedicated descriptions of the phenomenological velocity formulas, theory and mystery, I thought it appropriate to write this introduction as a partial explanation for what phenomenal velocity (...) is, and describe, briefly its theory and applications. Phenomenological Velocity is a method for solving for something that ought cancel out with itself, but there are specific implicit forms for this thing that, “ought cancel out with itself,” namely the Lorentz coefficient ought cancel out with itself when applied to the height of a cone derived from the difference between the circumferences of two circles applied to the Pythagorean Theorem, or, more generally, the height implied by application of the Pythagorean theorem to the difference between two arc lengths’ equaling a third arc length. These difference equations are essential to conceptualizing differentiation, and in these further chapters, I demonstrate that the phenomenological velocity is, indeed the conditional derivative in the chapter, “Conditional Integral of Phenomenological Velocity.” The phenomenological velocity algebraic solution to the velocity within the Lorentz coefficient when applied to the height function in such a way that it ought cancel out with itself is both constructive mathematics and it employs the concept of, “bracketing,” - first introduced by Edmund Husserl in his writings on the phenomenological reduction. Phenomenological Velocity’s algebraic solution from the difference between two arc lengths applied to the Pythagorean Theorem to solve for a theoretical height (which is a projected distance in space), employs bracketing, because we, “set aside,” the existence of an undefined solution, namely due to the presence of necessitated complex analytical forms by the architecture of the equation, or the “mathetecture,” of the algebraic form. -/- With respect to theology, the phenomenological velocity is somehow symbolic of the creation itself; symbolic of creation due to the fact that we find the canceling out of the Lorentz coefficient as, “impotent,” non-existent or non-effecting to the mathetecture of the height function. However, via the modus-ponens work around to phenomenological velocity, which in itself does not require the complex field, but embeds implied complex field solutions to the equation while maintaining logical consistency, we find existence from non-existence. This is directly linguistically applicable to the concept of the big-bang, the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah, and opens analogies for us to draw relationships between the, “fall,” of Adam and Eve as the generation of error, or the introduction of paradox, as we see the phallus representing paradox topologically. -/- The phenomenological velocity is a gestalt concept, relevant to cosmology, because we find that it is the perfect language-form for discussing dark matter. It does, however, require the reader to re-conceive or re-frame rather, some of the fundamental aspects of assumed physical reality like time, experience, solidity of dark matter, etc. We find the hidden dimension of phenomenological velocity to have been an overlooked aspect of mathematical physics by the researchers of Bell’s theorem and undoubtedly a host of other theorems. Thus, raising awareness about the real existence and necessitated reality of phenomenological velocity is in no way an endeavor deserving further procrastination by the scientific community, for doing so would be intellectually dishonest and further the propagation of incomplete or misleading theories on reality. -/- This work details how the Lorentz coefficient, when applied to the height of a cone in such a way as to cancel out with itself, permits the velocity variable to have a solution to it anyway, even though it ought cancel out with itself. This mathe-tecture, so to speak has consequences for complex analysis, and pave the way for, "transcendental relativity," building an adaptive framework for consciousness and physical reality. (shrink)

A nonstandard viewpoint to quantum gravity is discussed. General relativity and quantum mechanics are to be related as two descriptions of the same, e.g. as Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics merged in the contemporary quantum mechanics. From the viewpoint of general relativity one can search for that generalization of relativity implying the in-variance “within – out of” of the same system.

This work presents an architectural analysis of systems required to resolve multiplicity into unicity under a strict output constraint. It formulates the Mirror Limit, which states that any system facing more than one admissible alternative and required to produce a single determinate output must instantiate an integrative operation, independent of substrate, representation, or functional domain. The analysis distinguishes integration as an architectural role from execution as its concrete realization over time. Differences among systems are shown to arise from execution regimes (...) rather than from additional ontological layers. A set of execution parameters is introduced to account for variability in internal behavior and descriptive asymmetries without invoking phenomenological primitives. The work further identifies internal indexicality as an execution-relative descriptive capability that emerges under specific parameter configurations. Such descriptions are position-dependent and cannot be translated into external structural accounts without loss of role. This asymmetry is formalized as the Observer Horizon, a categorical limit on legitimate third-person attribution. On this basis, phenomenality is eliminated as an explanandum. What is commonly treated as phenomenal content is shown to correspond to internally indexical description rather than to an additional property or process. Architectural description is therefore complete at the level of integration roles and execution regimes. The result is a closed architectural framework that explains the necessity of integration, the variability of execution, and the limits of attribution, without recourse to phenomenological ontology or subjective primitives. (shrink)

This paper centers on the implicit metaphysics beyond the Theory of Relativity and the Principle of Indeterminacy – two revolutionary theories that have changed 20th Century Physics – using the perspective of Husserlian Transcedental Phenomenology. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) abolished the theoretical framework of Classical (Galilean- Newtonian) physics that has been complemented, strengthened by Cartesian metaphysics. Rene Descartes (1596- 1850) introduced a separation between subject and object (as two different and self- enclosed substances) while Galileo and (...) Newton did the “mathematization” of the world. Newtonian physics, however, had an inexplicable postulate of absolute space and absolute time – a kind of geometrical framework, independent of all matter, for the explication of locality and acceleration. Thus, Cartesian modern metaphysics and Galilean- Newtonian physics go hand in hand, resulting to socio- ethical problems, materialism and environmental destruction. Einstein got rid of the Newtonian absolutes and was able to provide a new foundation for our notions of space and time: the four (4) dimensional space- time; simultaneity and the constancy of velocity of light, and the relativity of all systems of reference. Heisenberg, following the theory of quanta of Max Planck, told us of our inability to know sub- atomic phenomena and thus, blurring the line between the Cartesian separation of object and subject, hence, initiating the crisis of the foundations of Classical Physics. But the real crisis, according to Edmund Husserl (1859-1930) is that Modern (Classical) Science had “idealized” the world, severing nature from what he calls the Lebenswelt (life- world), the world that is simply there even before it has been reduced to mere mathematical- logical equations. Husserl thus, aims to establish a new science that returns to the “pre- scientific” and “non- mathematized” world of rich and complex phenomena: phenomena as they “appear to human consciousness”. To overcome the Cartesian equation of subject vs. object (man versus environment), Husserl brackets the external reality of Newtonian Science (epoché = to put in brackets, to suspend judgment) and emphasizes (1) the meaning of “world” different from the “world” of Classical Physics, (2) the intentionality of consciousness (L. in + tendere = to tend towards, to be essentially related to or connected to) which means that even before any scientific- logical description of the external reality, there is always a relation already between consciousness and an external reality. The world is the equiprimordial existence of consciousness and of external reality. My paper aims to look at this new science of the pre- idealized phenomena started by Husserl (a science of phenomena as they appear to conscious, human, lived experience, hence he calls it phenomenology), centering on the life- world and the intentionality of consciousness, as providing a new way of looking at ourselves and the world, in short, as providing a new metaphysics (as an antidote to Cartesian metaphysics) that grounds the revolutionary findings of Einstein and Heisenberg. The environmental destruction, technocracy, socio- ethical problems in the modern world are all rooted in this Galilean- Newtonian- Cartesian interpretation of the relationship between humans and the world after the crumbling of European Medieval Ages. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) comments that the modern world is going toward a nihilism (L. nihil = nothingness) at the turn of the century. Now, after two World Wars and the dropping of Atomic bomb, the capitalism and imperialism on the one hand, and on the other hand the poverty, hunger of the non- industrialized countries alongside destruction of nature (i.e., global warming), Nietzsche might be correct: unless humanity changes the way it looks at humanity and the kosmos. The works of Einstein, Heisenberg and Husserl seem to be pointing the way for us humans to escape nihilism by a “great existential transformation.” What these thinkers of post- modernity (after Cartesian/ Newtonian/ Galilean modernity) point to are: a) a new therapeutic way of looking at ourselves and our world (metaphysics) and b) a new and corrective notion of “rationality” (different from the objectivist, mathematico- logical way of thinking). This paper is divided into four parts: 1) A summary of Classical Physics and a short history of Quantum Theory 2) Einstein’s Special and General Relativity and Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle 3) Husserl’s discussion of the Crisis of Europe, the life- world and intentionality of consciousness 4) A Metaphysics of Relativity and Indeterminacy and a Corrective notion of Rationality in Husserl’s Phenomenology. (shrink)

(Entry Update Notice) This document has been significantly revised and expanded, and has been submitted as a new, independent entry titled The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes. To facilitate reader access, this original entry will remain available. Please note that the new and old versions contain the same core work, and readers should avoid downloading duplicates. Appendix: Summary of the New Version's Content This update is based on a (...) more complete new version. The new work systematically reconstructs the foundations of mathematics from a first principle termed "Descriptive Relativity,"​ and claims to have achieved three fundamental breakthroughs: It clarifies the origin and nature of "number,"​ constructing this fundamental concept from its philosophical and logical roots. It proves the Riemann Hypothesis, establishing it as a meta-mathematical necessity. It provides comprehensive resolutions​ to a series of fundamental paradoxes in the foundations of mathematics. Therefore, the new version (The Natural Philosophy of Mathematics: On the Necessity of the Riemann Hypothesis and the Resolution of Mathematical Paradoxes) is the authoritative text representing the final conclusions of this research**, and readers are advised to refer to it. (shrink)

Descartes created the coordinate system, Newton invented calculus, and Riemann's geometry laid the foundation for relativity—each advancement in mathematics has propelled science. Yet, when examining mathematics itself, we encounter paradoxes that force an appeal to an unexamined "objective" reality, begging the question: How is mathematics itself possible? This work returns to a single, indubitable philosophical principle: Being as Relating. We demonstrate that mathematics is not a pre-existing Platonic realm, but a consensual logical protocol that necessarily emerges in any cognitive (...) system to sustain coherent description. From this, we rigorously derive the mathematical world: Number arises from the act of relating; Geometry is a projection of relational structures; π is the factor converting infinite continuity into finite determination; the imaginary unit i (i² = -1) is the necessary form of "relating to any perspective." Herein, the Riemann Hypothesis is proven as meta-mathematical necessity: its non-trivial zeros must lie at Re(s)=1/2, not by function properties, but because it is a fundamental law for harmonizing all perspectives. Thus, Gödel's and Russell's paradoxes are resolved, revealed as violations of the principle of relational description. The universal necessity of mathematics is grounded not in a transcendent realm, but in this inescapable deep grammar of relation. (shrink)

Is a bank note identical with the piece of paper of which it consists? On the one hand, John Searle, in his reply to Barry Smith, suggests that they are “one and the same object” that is a social or non-social object only under certain descriptions. On the other hand, Lynne Rudder Baker puts forward the claim that bank note and paper are distinct entities that are bound together by the relation of material constitution. I suggest two possible analyses for (...) Searle’s description relativity claim, the Alternative Subject Analysis and the Predicate Modification Analysis. On both accounts his identity claim gets into serious trouble. While Baker’s definition of material constitution deals well with the bank note example, it fails to account for the constitution of bearerless social entities and groups. I point out five respects in which social constitution can differ from Baker’s account of material constitution and discuss compositional, institutional and interactional constitution as additional varieties of social constitution. (shrink)

This paper assesses the viability of the model of ”collective action’ for the understanding of the doctrine of the inseparability of trinitarian operations, broadly conceived within a Social-Trinitarian framework. I argue that a ”loose’ understanding of this inseparability as ”unity of intention’ is insufficiently monotheistic and that it can be ”tightened’ by an understanding of the ontology of triune operations analogically modelled after collective actions of a ”constitutive’ kind. I also show that attention to the ”description relativity of action (...) ascriptions’ can potentially move us beyond the impasse of the doctrine of appropriation. Finally, I respond to potential objections. (shrink)

Standard accounts of the quantum-to-classical transition—decoherence, environmentinduced superselection, and Quantum Darwinism—explain how interference is suppressed and pointer bases emerge, but they do not specify when a quantum process delivers a classical fact for a given observer, nor how such facts relate across different observer-descriptions of the same experiment. Here we develop a decomposition-indexed framework in which classicality is not a global property of the universal quantum state, but a local, observerrelative feature defined with respect to a particular partition of the (...) Hilbert space into system, detector, observer, and environment. To each decomposition we associate a trajectory ΓD(t) = (AD(t),RD(t), FD(t)), where A quantifies epistemic accessibility, R counts redundancy of environmental encoding, and F measures irreversible detector flux. Classicality obtains when ΓD(t) enters a threshold region B in this space and remains there for at least a minimal dwell time. The resulting classical propositions are valid only within the local classical domain associated with that decomposition. We show that multi-observer paradoxes—Wigner’s friend, Brukner-type multi-agent arguments, and in particular the Frauchiger–Renner (FR) protocol—arise when one combines classical propositions drawn from incompatible decomposition-and-time contexts as if they belonged to a single global Boolean algebra. Within the present framework, the FR contradiction is reclassified as a type error: an illegitimate attempt to form a joint classical description from statements that are not simultaneously well-typed with respect to any common decomposition and time. The framework thus functions as a “syntax checker” for classical reasoning in unitary quantum mechanics. We do not postulate a new ontology or collapse mechanism; instead, we constrain when classical discourse is licensed by detector physics, decoherence, and redundancy. A simple qubit–detector–environment toy model illustrates how A(t), R(t), and F(t) can be computed and how decomposition-dependent classicalization times arise. We situate the proposal relative to relational, QBist, and consistent-histories approaches to the FR problem. The present article is self-contained; three companion papers provide extended developments but are not required for the definitions used here. (shrink)

This is an article meant to vanish upon reading. To engage with it may leave you intellectually dizzy and unsettled, yet to pass it by might mean forgoing a crucial moment to awaken into your own sovereign thinking. It begins with the fundamental paradox of cognition, weaving through ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language and mind, philosophy of science, and even the metaphysics of divination—all threaded by a single, unifying ontological-epistemological concept: being as verb and the relativity of (...) description. From philosophy to commerce, from Socrates to まつした こうのすけ, from scientific revolution to fortune-telling, it appears to speak of everything, yet in the end articulates nothing definitive. It is, instead, a pure summons to spiritual independence. Therefore, its true reader is not the academic specialist, but every existing individual. As for why it was written, even the author does not know—yet written it was. (shrink)

The theory of relativity (1) is considered form a perspective of folklore. Abstracted entities in the theory of relativity are stripped of units in order to provide explanation, to expose an ordinary meaning that employs a fulcrum for visual description. It is suggested that components of the theory’s construction are not only unusually compatible with religious and spiritual but are also unaccounted for scientifically; they may not render the expected power struggle of church doctrine with scientific notions but (...) an opposite situation in which logical contradiction at the root level of physical meaning and symbolism is absent and might exist only with respect to active perceptual structuring, either functioning on the unknown or belief. This situation, is projected to exist in a volatile mythological form as a ‘fulcrum’ like bridge between points of dispersion in which the (invisible) entity of mass assumes an added social (or physical) weight imposed by the assumption of the existence of massless space; especially, should its’ logically non excludable converse situation, of exclusively “mass and force containing space” for all phenomenon, find future explanation and validity. (shrink)

This paper proposes a unified framework in which biology and physics are continuous manifestations of a single evolving causal web governed by two fundamental organizing principles: locality and relativity of local causalities. Local causal interactions constitute the elementary currency of change within this dynamic web. Persistence (memory) and stability emerge as relatively stable local interactions embedded in an ever-changing network. Apparent top-down or bottom-up causation does not represent a distinct causal category but arises from the accumulated history of local (...) interactions. Reconceptualizing biology as a causal network in which natural selection shows as an emergent effect allows us to view the physical world as a seamless continuation of the same web operating across different boundaries. Mass, forces, and motion are reinterpreted as manifestations and flows of causality governed by the same principles of locality, relationality, and historical embedding. In this framework, relativity is not primarily a theory of inertial frames or the measurement of clocks and rods, but a description of how local causality is dynamically organized and reassigned through relative motion within the network. The quantum domain represents a further extension of this evolving causal web. Experimental choices and measurement outcomes are co-determined by the web’s historical structure, eliminating the need for genuine nonlocality to explain quantum correlations. The universe is thus neither a sterile clockwork governed by eternal Platonic laws nor a collection of disconnected parts; it is a single, interconnected, evolving web. (shrink)

Kant scholars have paid relatively little attention to his raciology. They assume that his racism, as personal prejudice, can be disentangled from his core philosophy. They also assume that racism contradicts his moral theory. In this book, philosopher Huaping Lu-Adler challenges both assumptions. She shows how Kant's raciology--divided into racialism and racism--is integral to his philosophical system. She also rejects the individualistic approach to Kant and racism. Instead, she uses the notion of racism as ideological formation to demonstrate how Kant, (...) from his social location both as a prominent scholar and as a lifelong educator, participated in the formation of modern racist ideology. As a scholar, Kant developed a ground-breaking scientific theory of race from the standpoint of a philosophical investigator of nature or Naturforscher. As an educator, he transmitted denigrating depictions of the racialized others and imbued those descriptions with normative relevance. In both roles, he left behind, as one of his legacies, a worldview that excluded non-whites from such goods as recognitional respect and candidacy for cultural and moral achievements. Scholars who research and teach Kant's philosophy therefore have an unshakable burden to take part in the ongoing antiracist struggles, through their teaching practices as well as their scholarship. And they must do so with a pragmatic attention to nonideal social realities and a deliberate orientation toward substantial racial justice, equality, and inclusion. Lu-Adler pushes the discourse about Kant and racism well beyond the old debates about whether he was racist or whether his racism contaminates his philosophy. By foregrounding the lasting legacies of Kant's raciology, her work calls for a profound reorientation of Kant scholarship. (shrink)

This paper is about how to interpret and evaluate purported evidence for predicativism about proper names. I aim to point out some underappreciated thorny issues and to offer both predicativists and non-predicativists some advice about how best to pursue their respective projects. I hope to establish three related claims: that non-predicativists have to posit relatively exotic, though not entirely implausible, polysemic mechanisms to capture the range of data that predicativists have introduced ; that neither referentialism nor extant versions of predicativism (...) can offer a very plausible account of the interpretive possibilities for singular unmodified definite descriptions containing names ; and that the most plausible version of predicativism would treat bare names as non-anaphoric definite descriptions. (shrink)

The text is a continuation of the article of the same name published in the previous issue of Philosophical Alternatives. The philosophical interpretations of the Kochen- Specker theorem (1967) are considered. Einstein's principle regarding the,consubstantiality of inertia and gravity" (1918) allows of a parallel between descriptions of a physical micro-entity in relation to the macro-apparatus on the one hand, and of physical macro-entities in relation to the astronomical mega-entities on the other. The Bohmian interpretation ( 1952) of quantum mechanics proposes (...) that all quantum systems be interpreted as dissipative ones and that the theorem be thus derstood. The conclusion is that the continual representation, by force or (gravitational) field between parts interacting by means of it, of a system is equivalent to their mutual entanglement if representation is discrete. Gravity (force field) and entanglement are two different, correspondingly continual and discrete, images of a single common essence. General relativity can be interpreted as a superluminal generalization of special relativity. The postulate exists of an alleged obligatory difference between a model and reality in science and philosophy. It can also be deduced by interpreting a corollary of the heorem. On the other hand, quantum mechanics, on the basis of this theorem and of V on Neumann's (1932), introduces the option that a model be entirely identified as the modeled reality and, therefore, that absolutely reality be recognized: this is a non-standard hypothesis in the epistemology of science. Thus, the true reality begins to be understood mathematically, i.e. in a Pythagorean manner, for its identification with its mathematical model. A few linked problems are highlighted: the role of the axiom of choice forcorrectly interpreting the theorem; whether the theorem can be considered an axiom; whether the theorem can be considered equivalent to the negation of the axiom. (shrink)

Some theories of goodness are descriptively rich: they have much to say about what makes things good. Neo-Aristotelian accounts, for instance, detail the various features that make a human being, a dog, a bee good relative to facts about those forms of life. Famously, such theories of relative goodness tend to be comparatively poor: they have little or nothing to say about what makes one kind of being better than another kind. Other theories of goodness—those that take there to be (...) absolute goodness—are comparatively rich: they offer grounds for judging some types of things better than others because they have more absolute goodness. Moorean accounts, for example, can tell us that humans and human experiences are superior to bees and blades of grass. But such theories tend to be descriptively poor: they struggle to tell us in virtue of what this is so. In this essay we motivate and flesh out a view that splits the difference between accounts of goodness as relative and accounts of goodness as absolute. Such a view holds promise only if the mechanics of this kind of metaphysics of goodness can be worked out. Here we present a view on which the paradigm for absolute goodness is God and the paradigm for each kind of relative goodness is a divine idea. (shrink)

In the standard model of cosmology, λCDM, were introduced to explain the anomalies of the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters highest according estimated by General Relativity the dark matter and the accelerated expansion of the universe the dark energy. The model λCDM is based in the equations of the General Relativity that of the total mass-energy of the universe assigns 4.9% to matter (including only baryonic matter), 26.8%, to dark matter and 68.3% to dark energy adjusted according (...) observed in Planck mission, therefore, excluding bosonic matter (quantum vacuum). However, the composition of dark matter and dark energy are unknown. Due to that it lacks of a correct physical theory of gravity since General Relativity is only their powerful equations, which in their applications, their results are interpreted arbitrarily. Properties as curvature, viscous fluid, dragging frame and gravity action are attributed mistakenly to the spacetime by the materialist substantivalism, the most credible philosophical interpretation that complements the General Relativity, caused by its absence of physical definition of spacetime and static gravitational field as immaterial, but which violates, the conception of gravity as an effect of coordinates of the generalization of the inertial motion to the accelerated motion and, in particular, the description of the metric tensor of gravity as a geometric field. These properties are really of the quantum vacuum, the main existence form of the matter. In this paper we propose that the quantum vacuum is the source of dark matter and dark energy, therefore, the components of the quantum vacuum are of them. Both are opposite effects of the quantum vacuum that when gravitationally interacts with the cosmic structures, the vacuum it curves and when such interaction tends to cease by declination of the formation of these structures, occurring since near five milliard of years ago, vacuum it maintains quasi plane, since it interacts gravitationally very weakly with itself, accelerating expansion of the universe. (shrink)

Space-time intervals are the fundamental components of conscious experience, gravity, and a Theory of Everything. Space-time intervals are relationships that arise naturally between events. They have a general covariance (independence of coordinate systems, scale invariance), a physical constancy, that encompasses all frames of reference. There are three basic types of space-time intervals (light-like, time-like, space-like) which interact to create space-time and its properties. Human conscious experience is a four-dimensional space-time continuum created through the processing of space-time intervals by the brain; (...) space-time intervals are the source of conscious experience (observed physical reality). Human conscious experience is modeled by Einstein’s special theory of relativity, a theory designed specifically from the general covariance of space-time intervals (for inertial frames of reference). General relativity is our most accurate description of gravity. In general relativity, the general covariance of space-time intervals is extended to all frames of reference (inertial and non-inertial), including gravitational reference frames; space-time intervals are the source of gravity in general relativity. The general covariance of space-time intervals is further extended to quantum mechanics; space-time intervals are the source of quantum gravity. The general covariance of space-time intervals seamlessly merges general relativity with quantum field theory (the two grand theories of the universe). Space-time intervals consequently are the basis of a Theory of Everything (a single all-encompassing coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe). This theoretical framework encompasses our observed physical reality (conscious experience) as well; space-time intervals link observed physical reality to actual physical reality. This provides an accurate and reliable match between observed physical reality and the physical universe by which we can carry on our activity. The Minkowski metric, which defines generally covariant space-time intervals, may be considered an axiom (premise, postulate) for the Theory of Everything. (shrink)

A relative or absolute shortage of one or more nutrients results in malnutrition. It is a major public health concern for children under ten in low-income countries. A state of nutritional deficiency caused by inadequate protein or calorie intake is known as malnutrition. Children in developing countries frequently suffer from primary acute malnutrition as a result of insufficient food supplies brought on by social, economic, and environmental factors. From November to December 2024, a self-designed descriptive questionnaire study was carried (...) out in the Narayanganj region of Bangladesh. The study included all relevant the study included all relevant information from their parents about their children aged one to ten years who had malnutrition-related problems. At most 62.6% of the children were from rural areas, whereas 37.1% were from town areas and 52.6% of parents were educated according to their interpretation. Analyzing the children's weight revealed that, 49 of them are underweight, 139 have a suitable body mass index, and 22 are heavyweight, with a body mass index greater than 48.6% of children were in excellent physical condition and were in good health. While 40.0% of the children had ordinary health, 7.6% had the worst physical state with minimal clinical characteristics, and eight instances had no apparent cause. On the other hand, diarrhea and decreased appetite are the most common issues, reported by 131 respondents overall. Finally, stronger preventive measures and greater community awareness can lessen malnutrition intensity and prevalence in that area of Bangladesh. (shrink)

In the standard model of cosmology, λCDM, were introduced to explain the anomalies of the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters highest according estimated by General Relativity the dark matter and the accelerated expansion of the universe the dark energy. The model λCDM is based in the equations of the General Relativity that of the total mass-energy of the universe assigns 4.9% to matter (including only baryonic matter), 26.8%, to dark matter and 68.3% to dark energy adjusted according (...) observed in Planck mission, therefore, excluding bosonic matter (quantum vacuum). However, the composition of dark matter and dark energy are unknown. Due to that it lacks of a correct physical theory of gravity since General Relativity is only their powerful equations, which in their applications, their results are interpreted arbitrarily. Properties as curvature, viscous fluid, dragging frame and gravity action are attributed mistakenly to the spacetime by the materialist substantivalism, the most credible philosophical interpretation that complements the General Relativity, caused by its absence of physical definition of spacetime and static gravitational field as immaterial, but which violates, the conception of gravity as an effect of coordinates of the generalization of the inertial motion to the accelerated motion and, in particular, the description of the metric tensor of gravity as a geometric field. These properties are really of the quantum vacuum, the main existence form of the matter. In this paper we propose that the quantum vacuum is the source of dark matter and dark energy, therefore, the components of the quantum vacuum are of them. Both are opposite effects of the quantum vacuum that when gravitationally interacts with the cosmic structures, the vacuum it curves and when such interaction tends to cease by declination of the formation of these structures, occurring since near five milliard of years ago, vacuum it maintains quasi plane, since it interacts gravitationally very weakly with itself, accelerating expansion of the universe. (shrink)

This descriptive study explores the views of resident physicians working in intensive care units (ICUs) concerning deceased organ donation and examines the various ethical issues surrounding organ donation encountered by residents. This was a qualitative, descriptive study utilizing solo interviews with participants together with focus group discussions. The participants' experiences and views were elicited via interviews and focus group discussions covering the following topics: ethical thoughts about deceased organ donation, barriers that impede or prevent organ donation, its effect (...) on the next of kin, and its relationship with futile treatment. The discussions were reviewed using qualitative content analysis. The residents commented that deceased organ donation is a complex and stressful process for the family of the potential donor as well as the transplant team, and still lacks wide acceptance in Turkish society. The opt-in system requires informed consent, thus creating a major barrier for both the patient’s family and the ICU team to overcome. The participants stated that new legal, ethical, and medical arrangements are needed to increase organ donation rates in Turkey. In order to increase rates of deceased organ donation and reduce cases of futile treatment, improved communication between the ICU, transplant team, and patient relatives is critical to ensure that ethical issues are properly managed. On a societal level, the subject of deceased organ donation needs to receive greater attention from public health authorities to increase public awareness. Residents can make valuable contributions to the deceased organ donation process as physicians and as psychosocial support for patients and their families. (shrink)

Non-commuting quantities and hidden parameters – Wave-corpuscular dualism and hidden parameters – Local or nonlocal hidden parameters – Phase space in quantum mechanics – Weyl, Wigner, and Moyal – Von Neumann’s theorem about the absence of hidden parameters in quantum mechanics and Hermann – Bell’s objection – Quantum-mechanical and mathematical incommeasurability – Kochen – Specker’s idea about their equivalence – The notion of partial algebra – Embeddability of a qubit into a bit – Quantum computer is not Turing machine – (...) Is continuality universal? – Diffeomorphism and velocity – Einstein’s general principle of relativity – „Mach’s principle“ – The Skolemian relativity of the discrete and the continuous – The counterexample in § 6 of their paper – About the classical tautology which is untrue being replaced by the statements about commeasurable quantum-mechanical quantities – Logical hidden parameters – The undecidability of the hypothesis about hidden parameters – Wigner’s work and и Weyl’s previous one – Lie groups, representations, and psi-function – From a qualitative to a quantitative expression of relativity − psi-function, or the discrete by the random – Bartlett’s approach − psi-function as the characteristic function of random quantity – Discrete and/ or continual description – Quantity and its “digitalized projection“ – The idea of „velocity−probability“ – The notion of probability and the light speed postulate – Generalized probability and its physical interpretation – A quantum description of macro-world – The period of the as-sociated de Broglie wave and the length of now – Causality equivalently replaced by chance – The philosophy of quantum information and religion – Einstein’s thesis about “the consubstantiality of inertia ant weight“ – Again about the interpretation of complex velocity – The speed of time – Newton’s law of inertia and Lagrange’s formulation of mechanics – Force and effect – The theory of tachyons and general relativity – Riesz’s representation theorem – The notion of covariant world line – Encoding a world line by psi-function – Spacetime and qubit − psi-function by qubits – About the physical interpretation of both the complex axes of a qubit – The interpretation of the self-adjoint operators components – The world line of an arbitrary quantity – The invariance of the physical laws towards quantum object and apparatus – Hilbert space and that of Minkowski – The relationship between the coefficients of -function and the qubits – World line = psi-function + self-adjoint operator – Reality and description – Does a „curved“ Hilbert space exist? – The axiom of choice, or when is possible a flattening of Hilbert space? – But why not to flatten also pseudo-Riemannian space? – The commutator of conjugate quantities – Relative mass – The strokes of self-movement and its philosophical interpretation – The self-perfection of the universe – The generalization of quantity in quantum physics – An analogy of the Feynman formalism – Feynman and many-world interpretation – The psi-function of various objects – Countable and uncountable basis – Generalized continuum and arithmetization – Field and entanglement – Function as coding – The idea of „curved“ Descartes product – The environment of a function – Another view to the notion of velocity-probability – Reality and description – Hilbert space as a model both of object and description – The notion of holistic logic – Physical quantity as the information about it – Cross-temporal correlations – The forecasting of future – Description in separable and inseparable Hilbert space – „Forces“ or „miracles“ – Velocity or time – The notion of non-finite set – Dasein or Dazeit – The trajectory of the whole – Ontological and onto-theological difference – An analogy of the Feynman and many-world interpretation − psi-function as physical quantity – Things in the world and instances in time – The generation of the physi-cal by mathematical – The generalized notion of observer – Subjective or objective probability – Energy as the change of probability per the unite of time – The generalized principle of least action from a new view-point – The exception of two dimensions and Fermat’s last theorem. (shrink)

PLEASE NOTE: This is the corrected 2nd eBook edition, 2021. ●●●●● _Critique of Impure Reason_ has now also been published in a printed edition. To reduce the otherwise high price of this scholarly, technical book of nearly 900 pages and make it more widely available beyond university libraries to individual readers, the non-profit publisher and the author have agreed to issue the printed edition at cost. ●●●●● The printed edition was released on September 1, 2021 and is now available through (...) all booksellers, including Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and brick-and-mortar bookstores under ISBN 978-0-578-88646-6. ●●●●● In light of the length of this book, readers who would like to have a more detailed description of the book's objectives and method may find it helpful to read the detailed and clearly written Wikipedia entry about this work: From the Wikipedia search page, use the search phrase "Critique of Impure Reason". At least at the time of this writing (11/29/2021), the Wikipedia entry is well-researched and accurate. ●●●●● In addition, a "Primer on Bartlett's CRITIQUE OF IMPURE REASON" has been made available by the author. It is available under its title through PhilPapers and other philosophy online archives. ●●●●● COMMENDATIONS OF THIS WORK, from the back cover of the published edition: ●●●●● “I admire its range of philosophical vision.” – Nicholas Rescher, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, author of more than 100 books. ●●●●● “Bartlett’s _Critique of Impure Reason_ is an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses that lead the reader to recognize the limits of meaning, knowledge, and conceptual possibility. The work addresses a host of traditional philosophical problems, among them the nature of space, time, causality, consciousness, the self, other minds, ontology, free will and determinism, and others. The book culminates in a fascinating and profound new understanding of relativity physics and quantum theory.” – Gerhard Preyer, Professor of Philosophy, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, author of many books including _Concepts of Meaning_, _Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics_, _Intention and Practical Thought_, and _Contextualism in Philosophy_. ●●●●● “[This work’s] goal is of a unique and difficult species: Dr. Bartlett seeks to develop a formal logical calculus on the basis of transcendental philosophical arguments; in fact, he hopes that this calculus will be the formal expression of the transcendental foundation of knowledge.... I consider Dr. Bartlett’s work soundly conceived and executed with great skill.” – C. F. von Weizsäcker, philosopher and physicist, former Director, Max-Planck-Institute, Starnberg, Germany. ●●●●● “Bartlett has written an American “Prolegomena to All Future Metaphysics.” He aims rigorously to eliminate meaningless assertions, reach bedrock, and place philosophy on a firm foundation that will enable it, like science and mathematics, to produce lasting results that generations to come can build on. This is a great book, the fruit of a lifetime of research and reflection, and it deserves serious attention.” — Martin X. Moleski, former Professor, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, studies of scientific method, the presuppositions of thought, and the self-referential nature of epistemology. ●●●●● “Bartlett has written a book on what might be called the underpinnings of philosophy. It has fascinating depth and breadth, and is all the more striking due to its unifying perspective based on the concepts of reference and self-reference.” – Don Perlis, Professor of Computer Science, University of Maryland, author of numerous publications on self-adjusting autonomous systems and philosophical issues concerning self-reference, mind, and consciousness. ●●●●● ●●●●● The _Critique of Impure Reason: Horizons of Possibility and Meaning_ comprises a major and important contribution to philosophy. Thanks to the generosity of its publisher, this massive 885-page volume has been published as a free open access eBook (3.75MB) as well as an open access printed edition. It inaugurates a revolutionary paradigm shift in philosophical thought by providing compelling and long-sought-for solutions to a wide range of philosophical problems. In the process, the work fundamentally transforms the way in which the concepts of reference, meaning, and possibility are understood. The book includes a Foreword by the celebrated German philosopher and physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. ●●●●● In Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason_ we find an analysis of the preconditions of experience and of knowledge. In contrast, but yet in parallel, the new _Critique_ focuses upon the ways—unfortunately very widespread and often unselfconsciously habitual—in which many of the concepts that we employ _conflict_ with the very preconditions of meaning and of knowledge. ●●●●● This is a book about the boundaries of frameworks and about the unrecognized conceptual confusions in which we become entangled when we attempt to transgress beyond the limits of the possible and meaningful. We tend either not to recognize or not to accept that we all-too-often attempt to trespass beyond the boundaries of the frameworks that make knowledge possible and the world meaningful. ●●●●● The _Critique of Impure Reason_ proposes a bold, ground-breaking, and startling thesis: that a great many of the major philosophical problems of the past can be solved through the recognition of a viciously deceptive form of thinking to which philosophers as well as non-philosophers commonly fall victim. For the first time, the book advances and justifies the criticism that a substantial number of the questions that have occupied philosophers fall into the category of “impure reason,” violating the very conditions of their possible meaningfulness. ●●●●● The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to enable us to recognize the boundaries of what is referentially forbidden—the limits beyond which reference becomes meaningless—and second, to avoid falling victims to a certain broad class of conceptual confusions that lie at the heart of many major philosophical problems. As a consequence, the boundaries of _possible meaning_ are determined. ●●●●● Bartlett, the author or editor of more than 20 books, is responsible for identifying this widespread and delusion-inducing variety of error, _metalogical projection_. It is a previously unrecognized and insidious form of erroneous thinking that undermines its own possibility of meaning. It comes about as a result of the pervasive human compulsion to seek to transcend the limits of possible reference and meaning. ●●●●● Based on original research and rigorous analysis combined with extensive scholarship, the _Critique of Impure Reason_ develops a self-validating method that makes it possible to recognize, correct, and eliminate this major and pervasive form of fallacious thinking. In so doing, the book provides at last provable and constructive solutions to a wide range of major philosophical problems. ●●●●● CONTENTS AT A GLANCE ▪▪▪▪▪ Preface ▪▪▪▪▪ Foreword by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker ▪▪▪▪▪ Acknowledgments ▪▪▪▪▪ Avant-propos: A philosopher’s rallying call ▪▪▪▪▪ Introduction ▪▪▪▪▪ A note to the reader ▪▪▪▪▪ A note on conventions ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART I ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ WHY PHILOSOPHY HAS MADE NO PROGRESS AND HOW IT CAN ▪▪▪▪▪ 1 Philosophical-psychological prelude ▪▪▪▪▪ 2 Putting belief in its place: Its psychology and a needed polemic ▪▪▪▪▪ 3 Turning away from the linguistic turn: From theory of reference to metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 4 The stepladder to maximum theoretical generality ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART II ▪▪▪▪▪ THE METALOGIC OF REFERENCE ▪▪▪▪▪ A New Approach to Deductive, Transcendental Philosophy ▪▪▪▪▪ 5 Reference, identity, and identification ▪▪▪▪▪ 6 Self-referential argument and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 7 Possibility theory ▪▪▪▪▪ 8 Presupposition logic, reference, and identification ▪▪▪▪▪ 9 Transcendental argumentation and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 10 Framework relativity ▪▪▪▪▪ 11 The metalogic of meaning ▪▪▪▪▪ 12 The problem of putative meaning and the logic of meaninglessness ▪▪▪▪▪ 13 Projection ▪▪▪▪▪ 14 Horizons ▪▪▪▪▪ 15 De-projection ▪▪▪▪▪ 16 Self-validation ▪▪▪▪▪ 17 Rationality: Rules of admissibility ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART III ▪▪▪▪▪ PHILOSOPHICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE METALOGIC OF REFERENCE ▪▪▪▪▪ Major Problems and Questions of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science ▪▪▪▪▪ 18 Ontology and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 19 Discovery or invention in general problem-solving, mathematics, and physics ▪▪▪▪▪ 20 The conceptually unreachable: “The far side” ▪▪▪▪▪ 21 The projections of the external world, things-in-themselves, other minds, realism, and idealism ▪▪▪▪▪ 22 The projections of time, space, and space-time ▪▪▪▪▪ 23 The projections of causality, determinism, and free will ▪▪▪▪▪ 24 Projections of the self and of solipsism ▪▪▪▪▪ 25 Non-relational, agentless reference and referential fields ▪▪▪▪▪ 26 Relativity physics as seen through the lens of the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 27 Quantum theory as seen through the lens of the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 28 Epistemological lessons learned from and applicable to relativity physics and quantum theory ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART IV ▪▪▪▪▪ HORIZONS ▪▪▪▪▪ 29 Beyond belief ▪▪▪▪▪ 30 _Critique of Impure Reason_: Its results in retrospect ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ SUPPLEMENT ▪▪▪▪▪ The Formal Structure of the Metalogic of Reference ▪▪▪▪▪ APPENDIX I ▪▪▪▪▪ The Concept of Horizon in the Work of Other Philosophers ▪▪▪▪▪ APPENDIX II ▪▪▪▪▪ Epistemological Intelligence ▪▪▪▪▪ References ▪▪▪▪▪ Index ▪▪▪▪▪ About the author. (shrink)

This paper develops a philosophical-analytical framework that interprets Qur’anic cosmology through the lens of contemporary physics, particularly relativity, quantum theory, and information-based models of the universe. Drawing upon Khorwat’s Al-Qur’ān al-Karīm: ʿIlm li-Kull al-Ḥaqāʾiq (2023), the study reexamines the Qur’anic concepts of kitāb (cosmic inscription), qadar (quantitative determination), and umm al-kitāb (the metaphysical source of actualization) as epistemic keys to understanding the structure of reality. The Qur’an, this paper argues, anticipates the modern scientific view that the universe is a (...) mathematically ordered system of information. The concept of kitāb corresponds to the total inscription of physical law, qadar to the precise measurement and quantification governing all entities, and umm al-kitāb to the informational matrix from which the material cosmos emerges—analogous to the quantum field of potentialities. By integrating Qur’anic hermeneutics, linguistic analysis (from Lisān al-ʿArab), and physical theory, the paper constructs a rigorous metaphysical model wherein divine inscription accounts for the unity of deterministic law (as seen in relativity) and contingent actualization (as seen in quantum mechanics). Special attention is devoted to reinterpreting the verse “God effaces what He wills and confirms what He wills; and with Him is the Mother of the Book” (Q 13:39) as a metaphysical principle describing the passage from informational possibility to physical actuality. Ultimately, the study proposes that the Qur’an articulates a philosophy of science that transcends empirical description: an ontology of quantitative creation that situates the laws of physics within divine intentionality. The paper thus offers a renewed philosophical interpretation of iʿjāz ʿilmī (scientific inimitability), demonstrating that the Qur’anic discourse on measure, inscription, and temporality anticipates the informational and relativistic foundations of modern cosmology. (shrink)

The paper discusses this year’s Nobel Prize in physics for experiments of entanglement “establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” in a much wider, including philosophical context legitimizing by the authority of the Nobel Prize a new scientific area out of “classical” quantum mechanics relevant to Pauli’s “particle” paradigm of energy conservation and thus to the Standard model obeying it. One justifies the eventual future theory of quantum gravitation as belonging to the newly established quantum information (...) science. Entanglement, involving non-Hermitian operators for its rigorous description, non-unitarity as well as nonlocal and superluminal physical signals “spookily” (by Einstein’s flowery epithet) synchronizing and transferring some nonzero action at a distance, can be considered to be quantum gravity so that its local counterpart to be Einstein’s gravitation according to general relativity therefore pioneering an alternative pathway to quantum gravitation different from the “secondary quantization” of the Standard model. So, the experiments of entanglement once they have been awarded by the Nobel Prize launch particularly the relevant theory of quantum gravitation grounded on “quantum information science” thus granted to be nonclassical quantum mechanics in the shared framework of the generalized quantum mechanics obeying rather quantum-information conservation than only energy conservation. The concept of “dark phase” of the universe naturally linked to the very well confirmed “dark matter” and “dark energy” and opposed to its “light phase” inherent to classical quantum mechanics and the Standard model obeys quantum-information conservation, after which reversible causality or the mutual transformation of energy and information are valid. The mythical Big Bang after which energy conservation holds universally is to be replaced by an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium of decoherence of the dark and nonlocal phase into the light and local phase. The former is only an integral image of the latter and borrowed in fact rather from religion than from science. Physical, methodological and proper philosophical conclusions follow from that paradigm shift heralded by this year’s Nobel Prize in physics. For example, the scientific theory of thinking should originate from the dark phase of the universe, as well: probably only approximately modeled by neural networks physically belonging to the light phase thoroughly. A few crucial philosophical sequences follow from the break of Pauli’s paradigm: (1) the establishment of the “dark” phase of the universe as opposed to its “light” phase, only to which the Cartesian dichotomy of “body” and “mind” is valid; (2) quantum information conservation as relevant to the dark phase, furthermore generalizing energy conservation as to its light phase, productively allowing for physical entities to appear “ex nihilo”, i.e., from the dark phase, in which energy and time are yet inseparable from each other; (3) reversible causality as inherent to the dark phase; (4) the interpretation of gravitation only mathematically: as an interpretation of the incompleteness of finiteness to infinity, for example, following the Gödel dichotomy (“either contradiction or incompleteness”) about the relation of arithmetic to set theory; (5) the restriction of the concept of hierarchy only to the light phase; (6) the commensurability of both physical extremes of a quantum and the universe as a whole in the dark phase obeying quantum information conservation and akin to Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophical and theological worldview. (shrink)

This thesis presents a comprehensive examination of temporal ontology, addressing the fundamental question of whether the future exists. Through critical analysis of existing philosophical positions—presentism, eternalism, and the growing block theory—this work identifies significant theoretical and empirical limitations that have created an intractable trilemma in contemporary temporal ontology. To resolve these issues, I propose Graduated Temporal Ontology (GTO), a novel theoretical framework that reconceptualizes temporal existence as a matter of degree rather than binary states. -/- GTO argues that the degree (...) of temporal existence is determined by four key factors: causal constraint, information content, quantum probability amplitudes, and scale of description. This framework successfully reconciles the apparent conflict between physical theories (particularly special relativity and quantum mechanics) and phenomenological experience, while providing empirically testable predictions about temporal cognition and neural processing. -/- The thesis demonstrates that GTO resolves classical problems in temporal ontology including the truth-maker problem, the reference problem, conflicts with special relativity, and the agency problem. Furthermore, it opens new avenues for empirical research in experimental philosophy, cognitive science, and neuroscience. The framework suggests that the future exists in degrees that vary with temporal distance, causal determination, and the scale of description, providing a more nuanced and scientifically grounded approach to temporal ontology than previous binary theories. (shrink)