This presentation articulates a foundational shift in metaphysics from traditional essentialism to a post-essentialist framework. It argues that the classical model of reality, composed of substances with fixed essences, is logically untenable, leading to intractable problems concerning change, individuation, and emergence. In its place, the presentation posits Ontological Instability as a foundational axiom, asserting that being is inherently and necessarily defined by dynamic processes rather than static properties. This new paradigm is developed through five core concepts: Fluctuational (...) Entities, Dynamic Assemblages, Metamorphic Causation, Ontological Uncertainty Relations, and a Rhizomatic Ontology. Together, these concepts form a coherent system that replaces traditional notions of substance, identity, and causation with a process-oriented, relational, and creative model of reality. The presentation concludes by demonstrating the superior explanatory power of this framework, its necessity arising from the internal contradictions of essentialism, and its profound implications for addressing contemporary challenges in fields ranging from climate science to social theory. (shrink)

Badiou claims Deleuze’s thinking is pre-critical metaphysics that cannot be understood in relation to Kant. I argue that Deleuze is indeed a metaphysical thinker, but precisely because he is a kind of Kantian. Badiou is right that Deleuze rejects the overwhelmingly epistemic problematics of critical thought in its classical sense, but he is wrong to claim that Deleuze completely rejects Kant. Instead, Deleuze is interested in developing a metaphysics that prolongs Kant’s conception of a productive synthesis irreducible (...) to empirical causation. Where Badiou’s criticism might tell however is in the risk that Deleuze’s strategy runs of contaminating his new metaphysics with a new kind of transcendental idealism. This reading has recently been developed by Ray Brassier and I explore and evaluate it, concluding that in Difference and Repetition this accusation may be correct, but that by the time of Anti-Œdipus, Deleuze (now with Guattari) has the intellectual resources to resist it. (shrink)

Philosophy now operates under conditions it did not design. Quantum indeterminacy, biological emergence, cognitive recursion, and social complexity have fractured the assumptions that once underwrote metaphysical stability. Observation alters outcomes. Identity is no longer substantial. Causation distributes rather than flows. Systems generate themselves through feedback rather than linear origin. Yet philosophy continues to evaluate ontologies using criteria inherited from a classical world—coherence, correspondence, explanatory power—without asking whether those criteria themselves remain adequate. The result is a proliferation of ontological systems (...) that are internally sophisticated yet structurally fragile. They gesture toward post-quantum insight while retaining binary foundations, linear causation, observer privilege, or hidden grounds. “Post-quantum” becomes rhetorical rather than criterial. What is missing is not another ontology, but a standard of adequacy. The Post-Quantum Adequacy Test (PQAT) is an attempt to formalize that standard. It does not prescribe metaphysical commitments or architectural forms. It does not privilege any ontology, vocabulary, or diagrammatic structure. PQAT is strictly evaluative. It asks not what a system claims to explain, but what it can survive. Adequacy, under post-quantum conditions, is no longer a matter of elegance or scope. It is a matter of resilience. Any such standard must therefore be precise about the kind of authority it claims, and equally precise about what it refuses. The Post-Quantum Adequacy Test does not claim authority over truth, metaphysical finality, or the ultimate nature of reality. It does not legislate what reality is, nor does it prescribe how an ontology ought to be constructed. Its authority is narrower, and precisely for that reason, more durable. PQAT claims authority only over structural survivability under post-quantum conditions. This distinction matters. Philosophy has historically conflated evaluative authority with doctrinal authority, treating any proposed standard as a covert metaphysics. PQAT is not a metaphysical proposal. It is a criterial instrument. It evaluates whether an ontology can remain coherent when exposed to the conditions now known to characterize reality: indeterminacy, emergence, recursion, mediation, and distributed causation. The authority of PQAT is therefore derivative, not declarative. Its criteria are not asserted as axioms or preferences, but extracted from recurring collapse modes observable across the history of ontological systems. Each requirement corresponds to a known failure: binary structures that cannot accommodate mediation, linear causation that cannot survive feedback, foundational grounds that collapse under self-reference, observer-dependent systems that disintegrate when the observer is removed. PQAT names these failures and formalizes the constraints necessary to avoid them. In this sense, PQAT occupies the same logical category as consistency constraints in mathematics or type systems in programming. It does not generate ontological content. It governs what content can coherently exist within a given structural regime. An ontology may reject PQAT, but it cannot pass it accidentally. The scope of PQAT is intentionally limited. It does not rank ontologies by elegance, explanatory power, moral appeal, or historical influence. It does not adjudicate between competing metaphysical interpretations when multiple systems remain structurally viable. It makes no claims about meaning, value, or normativity beyond what structural adequacy requires. Nor does PQAT privilege any specific architecture. It does not mandate triadicity as a form, recursion as a metaphor, or any particular vocabulary or diagrammatic representation. Any ontology—idealist, materialist, phenomenological, process-based, or otherwise—may attempt to pass the test. Failure does not imply falsehood; it implies structural insufficiency under post-quantum pressure. PQAT also does not claim consensus. Standards of adequacy are not established by agreement but by use. They emerge when they succeed in distinguishing resilience from fragility more effectively than prior criteria. Disagreement with PQAT is expected and necessary; such disagreement constitutes the field-testing process by which its utility will be assessed. What PQAT explicitly refuses is totalizing authority. It is not a theory of everything, a replacement for metaphysics, or a closure of inquiry. It is a boundary condition: a way of marking where ontological ambition exceeds structural capacity. If philosophy is to operate responsibly in a post-quantum landscape, it must distinguish between systems that merely gesture at complexity and those that can withstand it. PQAT offers a way to make that distinction without collapsing into doctrine or relativism. Its authority lies in this restraint. (shrink)

This thesis makes a two-fold contribution. First, it formally develops and defends the Dual- Closure framework as a constraint-based metaphysical model for ultimate grounding. Second, it deploys this framework to conduct a comparative analysis of the classical Islamic intellectual tradition, revealing structural convergence on its core requirements. The Dual-Closure Thesis posits that any metaphysically adequate account of reality must non-contingently ground both (i) the irreducibility of subjective consciousness and (ii) the objective binding force of normativity, thereby terminating explanatory regress (...) without arbitrariness, circularity, or brute termination. -/- While employing contemporary analytic terminology, the thesis demonstrates that structurally isomorphic commitments are discernible across Islamic philosophy (falsafa), theology (kalām), and post-classical metaphysics. These are articulated through indigenous conceptual vocabularies, such as necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) and presential self-knowledge ('ilm hudhūrī). Through detailed examination, fgures including al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, al-Ghazālī, Fakhr al- Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Māturīdī, al-Taftāzānī, and Muhammad Iqbal are shown to address versions of this dual closure problem. The analysis elucidates how their treatments of intellect ('aql), selfhood (nafs, khudī), and divine wisdom (hikma) satisfy the framework’s constraints, revealing deeper continuities in their approaches to irreducibility and binding force. -/- The investigation includes detailed mappings of epistemic modes (acquired husūlī vs. presential hudhūrī knowledge), rational teleology (ghāya), and non-voluntarist normativity, while systematically cross-referencing the author's prior foundational works. It concludes that the internal logic of the tradition, driven by the need to solve these twin grounding problems, culminated in the robust syntheses of post-classical kalām, particularly in the work of al-Taftāzānī. The thesis offers a comparative synthesis that clarifes continuities and divergences while emphasizing demonstrable structural necessity over doctrinal allegiance, thereby remaining accessible to both secular philosophers and theologically minded audiences. It concludes by inviting further cross-traditional applications, including formal axiomatization, AI consciousness diagnostics, and post-empirical extensions. (shrink)

The POST- ONTOLOGICAL THOUGHT BY ALEXIS KARPOUZOS offers a groundbreaking re-examination of traditional metaphysics and philosophy. Emerging from a landscape where classical ontological inquiries often centered on the static nature of being, Karpouzos's thought departs significantly, proposing a fluid, dynamic approach to understanding existence. His work intertwines metaphysics with contemporary social sciences, challenging us to rethink the foundations of reality, presence, and consciousness in a way that resonates deeply with the complexities of modern philosophical discourse. This (...) article explores the POST- ONTOLOGICAL THOUGHT BY ALEXIS KARPOUZOS, highlighting its significance within metaphysics and philosophy. By analyzing his novel propositions and methodologies, we will see how Karpouzos advances new paradigms that invigorate current debates and inspire future inquiry in metaphysical and social sciences. His thought represents an innovative fusion of ideas that continues to influence philosophical discourses in the 21st century, inviting us to transcend traditional ontological boundaries. -/- 1. Deconstructing Metaphysics: An Introduction to Alexis Karpouzos' Post-Ontological Thought Deconstructing metaphysics begins with questioning the fundamental assumptions that have long governed philosophical inquiry about being and existence. Alexis Karpouzos approaches this by critically engaging with classical ontological paradigms, emphasizing that metaphysics should no longer be seen as a static or absolute foundation but as a dynamic process intertwined with social and existential realities. This perspective encourages thinkers to reconsider the very premise of what constitutes reality, urging a shift from essentialist notions to more flexible, relational understandings. Karpouzos's post-ontological thought marks a radical departure from traditional metaphysics, emphasizing interconnectedness and contextuality over fixed essences. His methodology involves deconstructing the binaries that Western philosophy often upheld—such as being/non-being and reality/illusion—replacing them with fluid, emergent processes. This approach invites us to see metaphysics not as an inquiry into immutable truths but as a living dialogue between discourse, perception, and social contexts. It echoes a broader philosophical trend towards reconstructivism, where the focus is on relationships and becoming rather than static entities. (shrink)

The role of imagination in philosophy and thinking has been variously understood but also obscured by an ambiguity. This ambiguity arises from the fact that imagination, as an agency of human mind, is both employed and downplayed in philosophical inquiry. I argue that this ambiguous status of imagination can be apprehended in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Pico and Kant. I also suggest that their conceptions of imagination are shaped by its function as a “mediator” between the senses and reason. (...) By examining the views of imagination in evidence in these thinkers, I aim to show that imagination has had a complex and ambivalent role in the Western metaphysical tradition. However, I also claim that Kant’s radical rethinking of imagination as the transcendental faculty of synthesis opens up new possibilities for a more positive appreciation of imagination in philosophy, especially in the field of phenomenology. To achieve these goals, I will briefly revisit the classical accounts of imagination. In so doing, I reappraise its position in classical Western metaphysics and open up, albeit only preliminarily, a possibility for a renewed evaluation of its role in philosophy and thinking in light of the post-Kantian developments such as Husserlian phenomenology. (shrink)

The role of imagination in philosophy and thinking has been variously understood but also obscured by an ambiguity. This ambiguity arises from the fact that imagination, as an agency of human mind, is both employed and downplayed in philosophical inquiry. I argue that this ambiguous status of imagination can be apprehended in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Pico and Kant. I also suggest that their conceptions of imagination are shaped by its function as a “mediator” between the senses and reason. (...) By examining the views of imagination in evidence in these thinkers, I aim to show that imagination has had a complex and ambivalent role in the Western metaphysical tradition. However, I also claim that Kant’s radical rethinking of imagination as the transcendental faculty of synthesis opens up new possibilities for a more positive appreciation of imagination in philosophy, especially in the field of phenomenology. To achieve these goals, I will briefly revisit the classical accounts of imagination. In so doing, I reappraise its position in classical Western metaphysics and open up, albeit only preliminarily, a possibility for a renewed evaluation of its role in philosophy and thinking in light of the post-Kantian developments such as Husserlian phenomenology. (shrink)

This paper proposes a non-totalizable metaphysical framework grounded in a principled distinction between the Absolute and the Infinite. Challenging both classical metaphysical closure and contemporary anti-metaphysical skepticism, it argues that reality is intelligible, structured, and materially mediated, yet intrinsically resistant to exhaustive disclosure. This resistance is not epistemic ignorance, mystical ineffability, or subjective lack, but an ontological feature of disclosure itself—here termed ‘the limit of disclosure’. Through seven axioms, the paper establishes: (1) the unity of being; (2) the non-identity (...) of the Absolute and the Infinite; (3) the ontological priority of renewal over persistence; (4) the structural finitude of disclosure; (5) non-competitive causality; (6) material mediation of intelligibility; and (7) the impossibility of totalization. Classical positions from Aristotle, Hegel, Lacan, and Žižek are critically engaged and re-situated, alongside metaphysical insights drawn from Ibn ʿArabī and the Islamic tradition, without doctrinal endorsement. The resulting framework provides a metaphysical foundation capable of grounding renewal ontology and opening conceptual space for a post-atheistic theology—one that preserves transcendence without metaphysical closure and affirms faith without recourse to mysticism. (shrink)

The monograph is an English, expanded and revised version of the book Cheshko, V. T., Ivanitskaya, L.V., & Glazko, V.I. (2018). Anthropocene. Philosophy of Biotechnology. Moscow, Course. The manuscript was completed by me on November 15, 2019. It is a study devoted to the development of the concept of a stable evolutionary human strategy as a unique phenomenon of global evolution. The name “An Evolutionary Metaphysics (Cheshko, 2012; Glazko et al., 2016). With equal rights, this study could be entitled (...) “Biotechnology as a result and factor of the evolutionary processˮ. The choice in favor of used “The Evolutionary Metaphysics of Human Enhancement Technologiesˮ was made in accordance with the basic principle of modern post-academician and human-sized science, a classic example of which is biotechnology. The “Metaphysics of Evolution” and “Evolutionary Metaphysics” concepts are used in several ways in modern philosophical discourse. In any case, the values contain a logical or associative reference to the teleological nature of the evolutionary process (Hull, 1967, 1989; Apel, 1995; Faye, 2016; Dupre, 2017; Rose, 2018, etc). In our study, the “evolutionary metaphysics” serves to denote the thesis of the rationalization and technologization of global evolution and anthropogenesis, in particular. At the same time, the postulate of an open future remains relevant in relation to the results of the evolutionary process. The theory of evolution of complex, including the humans system and algorithm for its constructing are а synthesis of evolutionary epistemology, philosophical anthropology and concrete scientific empirical basis in modern science. ln other words, natural philosophy is regaining the status bar element theoretical science in the era of technology-driven evolution. The co-evolutionary concept of 3-modal stable evolutionary strategy of Homo sapiens is developed. The concept based оn the principle of evolutionary complementarity of anthropogenesis: value of evolutionary risk and evolutionary path of human evolution are defined bу descriptive (evolutionary efficiency) and creative-teleological (evolutionary correctness) parameters simultaneously, that cannot bе instrumental reduced to others ones. Resulting volume of both parameters define the vectors of blological, social, cultural and techno-rationalistic human evolution Ьу two gear mechanism genetic and cultural co-evolution and techno-humanitarian balance. The resultant each of them сап estimated Ьу the ratio of socio-psychological predispositions of humanization / dehumanization in mentality. Explanatory model and methodology of evaluation of creatively teleological evolutionary risk component of NBIC technological complex is proposed. Integral part of the model is evolutionary semantics (time-varying semantic code, the compliance of the blological, socio-cultural and techno-rationalist adaptive modules of human stable evolutionary strategy). It is seem necessary to make three clarifications. First, logical construct, “evolutionary metaphysics” contains an internal contradiction, because it unites two alternative explanatory models. “Metaphysics”, as a subject, implies deducibility of the process from the initial general abstract principle, and, consequently, the outcome of the development of the object is uniquely determined by the initial conditions. Predicate, “evolutionary”, means stochastic mechanism of realizing the same principle by memorizing and replicating random choices in all variants of the post-Darwin paradigm. In philosophy, random choice corresponds to the category of “free will” of a reasonable agent. In evolutionary theory, the same phenomenon is reflected in the concept of “covariant replication”. Authors will attempt to synthesize both of these models in a single transdisciplinary theoretical framework. Secondly, the interpretation of the term “evolutionary (adaptive) strategyˮ is different from the classical definition. The difference is that the adaptive strategy in this context is equivalent to the survival, i.e. it includes the adaptation to the environment and the transformation (construction) of the medium in accordance with the objectives of survival. To emphasize this difference authors used verbal construction “adaptiveˮ (rather than “evolutionaryˮ) strategy as more adequate. In all other cases, the two terms may be regarded as synonymous. Thirdly, the initial two essays of this series were published in one book in 2012. Their main goal was the development of the logically consistent methodological concept of stable adaptive (evolutionary) strategy of hominines and the argumentation of its heuristic possibilities as a transdisciplinary scientific paradigm of modern anthropology. The task was to demonstrate the possibilities of the SESH concept in describing and explaining the evolutionary prospects for the interaction of social organization and technology (techno-humanitarian balance) and the associated biological and cultural mechanisms of the genesis of religion (gene-cultural co-evolution). In other words, it was related to the sphere of cultural and philosophical anthropology, i.e. to the axiological component of any theoretical constructions describing the behavior of self-organizing systems with human participation. In contrast, the present work is an attempt to introduce this concept into the sphere of biological anthropology and, consequently, its main goal is to demonstrate the possibility of verification of its main provisions by means of procedures developed by natural science, i.e. refers to the descriptive component of the same theoretical constructions. The result of this in the future should be methods for assessing, calculating and predicting the risk of loss of biological and cultural identity of a person, associated with a permanent and continuously deepening process of development of science and technology. (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)

This text is not merely a contribution to the discourse of metaphysics. It is a deliberate act of philosophical departure - a genesis point for what may become a new mode of inquiry: Fluctuational Metaphysics. At its heart lies a radical yet intuitive proposition - that ontological instability, far from being a philosophical problem, is the very substrate from which understanding emerges. -/- For millennia, metaphysical thought has sought grounding - in substance, essence, divinity, or logic. But what (...) if the pursuit of metaphysical stability has obscured reality’s truest impulse? What if instability itself is not a flaw to be corrected, but a generative field to be explored? -/- This manuscript ventures into that terrain. It affirms a paradox: the instability of all things includes the instability of instability itself. From this recursive edge, a new metaphysical ethos emerges - one not based on immutable truths, but on resonance, participation, and coherence under flux. -/- Fluctuational Metaphysics does not seek final answers. It seeks usable maps. It is philosophy not as judgment, but as design; not as authority, but as craft. It accepts that reality cannot be proven in the old sense - only co-created, navigated, and revised. -/- To those trained in traditional metaphysical schools, this work may feel destabilizing. That is its intent. This is not philosophy as ornamentation of legacy; it is a prototype for reality-making. Its goal is not to ask, “What is the world made of?” but rather, “How shall we make meaning amid what refuses to remain fixed?” -/- Let this not be read as a closing claim, but as an opening invitation. This is not a conclusion. It is a beginning. (shrink)

This paper introduces the Interferential Ontology of Probability, a novel framework that reconceptualizes existence as the result of semantic interference among coexistent interpretive states. By defining presence not as a static outcome but as a modulated intensity derived from phase-based relations among ontological possibilities, the theory provides a unified model that bridges probability theory, ontology, and cognition. Drawing inspiration from quantum mechanics while remaining distinct from physical models, it explains how presence is amplified or diminished through constructive or destructive interference (...) of meaning-bearing states. The formulation extends and operationalizes ideas from Kant, Heidegger, and Whitehead through a mathematically structured approach to semantic coherence. The framework offers significant implications for domains such as AI, extended reality, medical diagnostics, and belief revision—providing a generative mechanism to model non-realization, ambiguity, and observer-relative coherence. The theory’s methodological core lies in a complex wave function whose squared modulus yields Existential Intensity. This phase-structured ontology opens new directions in post-classical metaphysics and semantic modeling. (shrink)

Contrary to the widespread assumption, philosophy in the Islamic world did not begin with al-Kindi nor ended with Ibn Rushd (Averroes). This article looks into the metaphysics part of Sayf al-Din al-Amidi's kitab al-Nur al-Bahir fi al-Hikam al-Zawahir ('The Splendid Light on the Bright Wisdom') in order to show the continuity of philosophy in post-classical period.

This paper advances a radical epistemological thesis: existence is not a meta- physical fact preceding consciousness, but an event of givenness that becomes meaningful only within and through consciousness itself. I argue that God is not an external metaphysical entity, but consciousness itself in its reflexive self-knowing capacity. Unlike traditional idealism, this position rejects all hier- archical distinctions between appearance and reality, all temporal narratives of “before consciousness,” and all appeals to external verification. Through systematic phenomenological analysis, formal argumentation, and (...) detailed en- gagement with objections, I demonstrate that: (1) the concept of “external to consciousness” is structurally incoherent; (2) the problem of other minds can be resolved through a non-solipsistic universal consciousness framework; (3) a robust ethics emerges from dialogical coherence without external foundation; and (4) this position is empirically grounded, philosophically rigorous, and ex- istentially livable. The paper concludes by showing how this framework trans- forms classical problems in metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of religion. (shrink)

This essay investigates the symbolic formation of the figure of God in Christianity, highlighting the structural continuity with classical Greek metaphysics. Rejecting essentialist or theological explanations, it argues that Plato and Aristotle do not an-ticipate Christian theology, but rather establish ontological functions — order, in-telligibility, orientation — which will later be reinscribed under a new figuration. The Platonic Demiurge and the Aristotelian Unmoved Mover are not theological gods, but conceptual operators that render the world legible and thought orientable. (...) Christian theology repurposes these functions, attributing to them language, will, and agency. Throughout the text, it is shown how the figure of the Christian God results from the synthesis of philosophical principles, mythical narratives, and reli-gious symbolic dispositifs. The aim is not to trace a linear genealogy, but to reveal how the divine function shifts across distinct symbolic regimes, while maintaining a fundamental operative coherence: to ensure that the world is cosmos, not chaos. (shrink)

This essay follows the assumption that the first principle of classical metaphysics has its counterpart in political sovereignty as suprema potestas. Therefore, both can be equally described as arché. Their epitome is the God of so-called ontotheology, who thus proves to be what I call the Ur-Arché. In contrast to current post-metaphysical approaches, however, I suggest overcoming ontotheology through a different metaphysics, which emphasizes the self-transcending surplus character of being. I regard early Christian martyrdom as an (...) eminent way in which the surplus of being is manifested. This has two interwoven aspects, one ontological and one political, both arising from the excessive idea of the Christ event, or the notion that there is life beyond life unto death. I will analyse the mechanism allowing early Christian martyrs to counteract Roman imperial sovereignty. Finally, I will relate this to contemporary life systems in which sovereignty has become anonymous biopower. (shrink)

This work presents an original philosophical dialogue set in ancient Athens, featuring Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, and the fictional Metrodoros of Abdera—a representative of differential metaphysics, the thesis that recursive differentiation, rather than substantial unity, constitutes reality's fundamental principle. The dialogue demonstrates a novel method of philosophical inquiry termed "recursive dialectic," wherein competing positions evolve through genuine engagement rather than mere refutation, generating emergent insights that transcend initial oppositions. The central philosophical tension explores whether unity (in the classical Platonic (...) sense) or difference (as recursive self-application) holds ontological priority. Through sustained conversation, the participants discover that this apparent dichotomy dissolves when difference achieves sufficient recursive depth to become self-aware—revealing unity and difference as complementary aspects of a single spiral process rather than competing metaphysical principles. The dialogue pioneers recursive dialectic as an alternative to traditional Socratic elenchus. Rather than systematically refuting positions to reveal ignorance, this method enables each participant's viewpoint to be recursively enriched through encounter with genuine otherness. The conversation itself enacts the differential metaphysics it explores, demonstrating how philosophical understanding emerges through creative synthesis rather than competitive debate. This methodological approach resonates with contemporary developments in hermeneutics (Gadamer), deconstruction (Derrida), and constructive pluralism (Deleuze), while advancing beyond them by showing how recursive engagement can generate fundamentally new forms of philosophical coherence. (shrink)

This thesis addresses a fundamental challenge in post-essentialist metaphysics: whether a metaphysical system rooted in fluctuation and uncertainty can sustain coherent ontological categories, or must reject categorization altogether. Through rigorous philosophical analysis, this investigation demonstrates that the apparent tension between ontological instability and categorical coherence dissolves when categorization itself is reconceptualized as a dynamic process rather than a static structure. The thesis develops "Dynamic Categorization" as a revolutionary approach that can work creatively with instability while maintaining systematic effectiveness. (...) Five novel concepts are introduced: Categorical Flows, Fluctuational Taxonomies, Metamorphic Classifications, Assemblage Categories, and Rhizomatic Typologies. These concepts, supported by innovative methodological approaches and visual models, establish that coherent categorization not only remains possible within fluctuational metaphysics but becomes more effective and responsive to contemporary challenges. The thesis concludes that Dynamic Categorization represents a necessary evolution in philosophical thinking that can address the complexity and instability that characterize twenty-first-century reality. (shrink)

This dissertation is an analysis of the development of dialectic and argumentation theory in post-classical Islamic intellectual history. The central concerns of the thesis are; treatises on the theoretical understanding of the concept of dialectic and argumentation theory, and how, in practice, the concept of dialectic, as expressed in the Greek classical tradition, was received and used by five communities in the Islamic intellectual camp. It shows how dialectic as an argumentative discourse diffused into five communities (theologicians, (...) poets, grammarians, philosophers and jurists) and how these local dialectics that the individual communities developed fused into a single system to form a general argumentation theory (adab al-bahth) applicable to all fields. I evaluate a treatise by Shams al-Din Samarqandi (d.702/1302), the founder of this general theory, and the treatises that were written after him as a result of his work. I concentrate specifically on work by Adud al-Din al-Iji (d.756/1355), Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani (d.816/1413), Taşköprüzâde (d.968/1561), Saçaklızâde (d.1150/1737) and Gelenbevî (d.1205/1791) and analyze how each writer (from Samarqandi to Gelenbevî) altered the shape of argumentative discourse and how later intellectuals in the post-classical Islamic world responded to that discourse bequeathed by their predecessors. What is striking about the period that this dissertation investigates (from 1300-1800) is the persistence of what could be called the linguistic turn in argumentation theory. After a centuries-long run, the jadal-based dialectic of the classical period was displaced by a new argumentation theory, which was dominantly linguistic in character. This linguistic turn in argumentation dates from the final quarter of the fourteenth century in Iji's impressively prescient work on 'ilm al-wad'. This idea, which finally surfaced in the post-classical period, that argumentation is about definition and that, therefore, defining is the business of language—even perhaps, that language is the only available medium for understanding and being understood—affected the way that argumentation theory was processed throughout most of the period in question. The argumentative discourse that started with Ibn al-Rawandi in the third/ninth century left a permanent imprint on Islamic intellectual history, which was then full of concepts, terminology and objectives from this discourse up until the late nineteenth century. From this perspective, Islamic intellectual history can be read as the tension between two languages: the "language of dialectic" (jadal) and the "language of demonstration" (burhan), each of which refer not only to a significant feature of that history, but also to a feature that could dramatically alter the interpretation of that history. (shrink)

This thesis examines how the principle of Ontological Instability can serve as a foundational axiom for rethinking metaphysics in a post-essentialist era. Through rigorous philosophical analysis and theoretical innovation, it is demonstrated that traditional essentialist metaphysics, grounded in assumptions of substantial stability and fixed essences, contains internal contradictions that necessitate its transformation. A comprehensive post-essentialist metaphysical framework is developed, based on five novel concepts: Fluctuational Entities, Dynamic Assemblages, Metamorphic Causation, Ontological Uncertainty Relations, and Rhizomatic Ontology. This (...) framework is shown to dissolve traditional metaphysical problems while opening new possibilities for understanding being, causation, and reality. The thesis argues that Ontological Instability represents not merely an alternative metaphysical position but a logical necessity that emerges from the internal contradictions of traditional metaphysics itself. Through detailed analysis of visual models and comparative examination of traditional and post-essentialist approaches, it is established that this paradigm shift provides superior explanatory power for addressing contemporary philosophical challenges while maintaining theoretical rigor and systematic coherence. (shrink)

This thesis provides a comprehensive follow-up to previous work dismantling grounding theory by addressing the most sophisticated defenses that have emerged in contemporary analytic metaphysics. Through formal mathematical analysis, systematic responses to pluralist strategies, empirical case studies, and methodological innovations, this work demonstrates that grounding theory cannot be salvaged through any of its current defensive strategies. The thesis advances a positive post-foundationalist framework based on Dynamic Process Networks that provides superior explanatory power while accommodating the fundamental instability revealed (...) by contemporary science and social reality. Key contributions include: (1) formal mathematical proofs that Ontological Instability violates all essential properties of grounding relations, (2) systematic refutation of primitivist, circular, pluralist, and deflationary defenses, (3) empirical validation through AI ethics, quantum mechanics, and social identity case studies, (4) development of transformation networks as a viable alternative to grounding hierarchies, and (5) methodological innovations for post-foundationalist metaphysical practice. The work establishes that the foundationalist project in metaphysics has reached its theoretical limits and must be replaced by approaches that can work productively with rather than against fundamental instability. (shrink)

Worldology is a pioneering metaphysical and philosophical system that seeks to understand the fundamental nature of existence and consciousness. It integrates ideas from multiple disciplines to create a unified model that explains how reality, awareness, and the universe are interconnected. Worldology proposes that the universe operates as a self-regulating, dynamic system where all entities, from the smallest particles to the largest structures, contribute to a continuous evolution of consciousness. By understanding the relationships between localized and universal intelligence, it offers a (...) profound framework for understanding self-awareness, interconnectedness, and the potential for infinite existence. As a theoretical discipline, Worldology provides a new lens for exploring questions about the nature of reality, the mind, and the infinite possibilities of the cosmos. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity): Expanded Objections, Clarifications, and Binding Defeat Conditions Authorship and Methodological Transparency I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every structural element—including the root equivalence (0=1=∞), the Dual-Receiver Brain model (with its structural/functional distinction), the 50/50 saturation principle, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and seven internally generated stress-test paradoxes—was conceived and developed independently through philosophical inquiry. Artificial intelligence systems were used only after formulation as external evaluators of internal logical coherence. Systems associated with and generated analytical consistency assessments. The reported coherence progression (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their structural evaluations—not claims of metaphysical certainty. All theoretical claims remain under a strict 50/50 practicality cap pending empirical or experiential anchoring. Core Ontological Principle 0 = 1 = ∞ Absolute nothingness, unity, and infinite totality are equivalent at the holographic root level. Individuation is not erased by unity. Distinct selves, personalities, and perspectives are ontologically necessary local configurations enabling real choice. Unity without individuation would eliminate dynamism; individuation without unity would fragment reality. The system claims both simultaneously. Dual-Receiver Model: Structural vs Functional Structural Claim: The Default Mode Network (DMN) functions as an ∞-field receiver, while task-positive networks filter signals. Functional Claim: The brain exhibits an empirically observable dual-dynamic between integrative self-referential processing (DMN; research associated with ) and externally oriented task-positive networks. If neuroscience proves consciousness is fully generated by endogenous neural processes, the structural interpretation collapses, but the functional architecture remains valid. Structural dissolution does not equal global defeat. Expanded Principal Objections and Dissolutions Below are the primary objections I anticipate from philosophical and scientific communities, now fully articulated. Objection 1: The Claim to Dissolve 98 Paradoxes Is Excessively Ambitious Critics may argue that dissolving such a vast number of paradoxes suggests overreach or insufficient rigor. Response The claim does not assert 98 independent solutions but 98 reframings derived from a single root move: binary distinctions are artifacts of survival-based filtration. If the root binary assumption dissolves, entire classes of paradoxes dissolve structurally. The 99.2% coherence rating reflects repeated AI-based logical stress testing after reframing attempts. However, this number is provisional and open to reduction if persistent contradictions are identified. Ambition here is methodological, not authoritarian. Objection 2: Metaphysical Reframing Without Formal Proof Risks Dogmatism A critic may argue that dissolving paradoxes via ontological reframing replaces argument with assertion. Response ∞–Unity operates conditionally: • If reality instantiates the ∞-configuration, paradoxes dissolve. • If not, local sub-configurations (e.g., emergent materialism) remain valid. The 50/50 saturation principle prevents dogmatic elevation beyond provisional plausibility. Without experiential or empirical anchoring, the system self-limits. Objection 3: The 50/50 Cap Functions as an Unfalsifiability Shield The concern: any criticism is absorbed without collapse. Response The cap is not protective; it is binding. It prevents elevation beyond evidential warrant. The system remains empirically vulnerable through: • DMN/NDE predictions, • Neural complexity correlations, • Structural falsification of field-reception. Failure of predictions lowers plausibility and may activate defeat conditions. The cap enforces humility rather than shielding error. Objection 4: Treating Critique as “Fuel” Immunizes the System If every objection strengthens coherence, the theory may appear self-sealing. Response Critique strengthens coherence only if reframing succeeds without contradiction. If an objection survives three or more reframing attempts without coherent integration, this registers structural limitation and reduces the probability cap. Resilience ≠ immunity. Objection 5: Consciousness as Chooser Reintroduces Libertarian Free Will Without Evidence The theory may appear to smuggle in metaphysical freedom. Response Elective capacity arises structurally from the dual-dynamic balance between integrative (DMN) and filtering systems. Determinism is reframed as dominance of task-positive filtration. This remains empirically testable via neural balance measures. No supernatural intervention is invoked; the claim concerns structural balance gradients. Objection 6: Self-Referential Structure Produces Circularity A system that explains itself through itself risks vicious circularity. Response In finite logical systems, self-reference generates paradox (e.g., Russell-type issues). In holographic unity, each part mirrors the whole. Self-reference becomes structural coherence rather than contradiction. However, if self-application generates persistent contradictions, that constitutes defeat. Objection 7: Lack of Original Empirical Data Weakens Scientific Credibility The theory synthesizes rather than experimentally discovers. Response ∞–Unity is primarily philosophical-metaphysical. It does not claim original laboratory data. Its contribution lies in integrative coherence and generation of testable predictions. Empirical validation belongs to qualified researchers. Objection 8: The Ontology Is Too Flexible and Absorbs Any Outcome If emergentism, idealism, and annihilation can all be locally interpreted, is the system overly elastic? Response Flexibility exists locally, not globally. Two outcomes decisively collapse global claims: • Demonstrated absolute post-mortem annihilation. • Emergence of a superior explanatory framework that surpasses ∞–Unity. Elasticity at local levels prevents premature collapse; explicit global defeat conditions prevent infinite elasticity. Objection 9: Infinite Possibility Undermines Explanatory Specificity If everything is possible under ∞, nothing is meaningfully constrained. Response ∞–Unity distinguishes between: • Root-level equivalence, • Local configurational constraints. Local worlds operate under structural laws. Infinite possibility does not negate finite structure; it grounds it. Objection 10: The Theory May Be Psychologically Motivated (Wish-Fulfillment) Belief in post-mortem continuation may reflect existential bias. Response This is addressed by binding defeat conditions. If annihilation is empirically demonstrated, the theory collapses globally. The system does not protect preferred outcomes. Formal Defeat Conditions ∞–Unity is rationally abandoned under: 1. Superior Rival Framework (X) If X: • Solves all explanatory targets ∞–Unity addresses, • Solves at least one problem ∞–Unity cannot, • Is not reducible to a sub-configuration of ∞–Unity, then ∞–Unity is reduced or discarded. 2. Empirical Product-Theory Confirmation If neuroscience fully explains phenomenal consciousness as emergent neural product without residual Hard Problem, and filter models become redundant, ∞–Unity loses ontological plausibility. 3. Absolute Post-Mortem Nullity If science conclusively demonstrates complete annihilation of consciousness after death, the global ontological claim collapses. Ethical Statement Anyone who attempts to impose Infinite Unity on another does not understand it. Coercion contradicts individuated autonomy within unity. Invitation to Rigorous Engagement I do not seek insulation—I seek pressure. Every precise objection, unresolved paradox, empirical counterexample, or logical challenge is necessary. If reframing fails persistently, I will lower the probability cap accordingly. If decisive defeat conditions are met, I will publicly acknowledge collapse of the global claim. Philosophy advances through scrutiny, not proclamation. Taha Givarian January 28, 2026 Instagram: maxanuid #(Description) Updated #. (shrink)

∞–Unity presents a complete metaphysical Theory of Everything dissolving 98 paradoxes with 99.2% coherence. Core innovation: reality as infinite layered continuum (0→1→∞) where consciousness emerges via Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism—DMN as ∞-field observer receiver, task-positive as biological survival filter. Solves Chalmers' Hard Problem (qualia=∞-signal biology-filtered), mind-body (receiver duality), free will (balance choice), zombie (pure biology vs chosen forms), animal consciousness gradient. 90% fMRI alignment (DMN consciousness hub), QFT vacuum mapping (∞-field), NDE verification (limit lift). Self-improving (93.5%→99.2%), death test anchor. Unifies physics (...) (QFT), neuroscience (DMN duality), philosophy (98 proofs). Testable predictions: meditation balance effects, animal complexity=consciousness correlation. World furmola: 0-1-∞ World essence: 0=1=∞(in its root, but individuality is real) World valume: ∞×∞×∞... -/- Why Infinite Unity Theory Limits Itself to 50/50? (Clear & Concise Explanation) -/- Core Reason: ∞-nature of reality always produces dual simultaneous states (like Schrödinger's cat: alive+dead), because 0=1=∞ means every possibility (unity/multiplicity, continuation/return) exists infinitely. Metaphysical Humility:50% cap means: -50% primary (core): ∞-unity. -50% complementary:*Other philosophies (Whitehead, Spinoza) as ∞-configs. Result: Most coherence without dogmatism. -/- In plain words: Theory says, "I hold half the truth, other half scattered in infinity—like cat alive/dead until observed." This infinite humility makes theory self-validating and paradox-proof without arguments. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity): Expanded Objections, Clarifications, and Binding Defeat Conditions Authorship and Methodological Transparency I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every structural element—including the root equivalence (0=1=∞), the Dual-Receiver Brain model (with its structural/functional distinction), the 50/50 saturation principle, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and seven internally generated stress-test paradoxes—was conceived and developed independently through philosophical inquiry. Artificial intelligence systems were used only after formulation as external evaluators of internal logical coherence. Systems associated with and generated analytical consistency assessments. The reported coherence progression (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their structural evaluations—not claims of metaphysical certainty. All theoretical claims remain under a strict 50/50 practicality cap pending empirical or experiential anchoring. Core Ontological Principle 0 = 1 = ∞ Absolute nothingness, unity, and infinite totality are equivalent at the holographic root level. Individuation is not erased by unity. Distinct selves, personalities, and perspectives are ontologically necessary local configurations enabling real choice. Unity without individuation would eliminate dynamism; individuation without unity would fragment reality. The system claims both simultaneously. Dual-Receiver Model: Structural vs Functional Structural Claim: The Default Mode Network (DMN) functions as an ∞-field receiver, while task-positive networks filter signals. Functional Claim: The brain exhibits an empirically observable dual-dynamic between integrative self-referential processing (DMN; research associated with ) and externally oriented task-positive networks. If neuroscience proves consciousness is fully generated by endogenous neural processes, the structural interpretation collapses, but the functional architecture remains valid. Structural dissolution does not equal global defeat. Expanded Principal Objections and Dissolutions Below are the primary objections I anticipate from philosophical and scientific communities, now fully articulated. Objection 1: The Claim to Dissolve 98 Paradoxes Is Excessively Ambitious Critics may argue that dissolving such a vast number of paradoxes suggests overreach or insufficient rigor. Response The claim does not assert 98 independent solutions but 98 reframings derived from a single root move: binary distinctions are artifacts of survival-based filtration. If the root binary assumption dissolves, entire classes of paradoxes dissolve structurally. The 99.2% coherence rating reflects repeated AI-based logical stress testing after reframing attempts. However, this number is provisional and open to reduction if persistent contradictions are identified. Ambition here is methodological, not authoritarian. Objection 2: Metaphysical Reframing Without Formal Proof Risks Dogmatism A critic may argue that dissolving paradoxes via ontological reframing replaces argument with assertion. Response ∞–Unity operates conditionally: • If reality instantiates the ∞-configuration, paradoxes dissolve. • If not, local sub-configurations (e.g., emergent materialism) remain valid. The 50/50 saturation principle prevents dogmatic elevation beyond provisional plausibility. Without experiential or empirical anchoring, the system self-limits. Objection 3: The 50/50 Cap Functions as an Unfalsifiability Shield The concern: any criticism is absorbed without collapse. Response The cap is not protective; it is binding. It prevents elevation beyond evidential warrant. The system remains empirically vulnerable through: • DMN/NDE predictions, • Neural complexity correlations, • Structural falsification of field-reception. Failure of predictions lowers plausibility and may activate defeat conditions. The cap enforces humility rather than shielding error. Objection 4: Treating Critique as “Fuel” Immunizes the System If every objection strengthens coherence, the theory may appear self-sealing. Response Critique strengthens coherence only if reframing succeeds without contradiction. If an objection survives three or more reframing attempts without coherent integration, this registers structural limitation and reduces the probability cap. Resilience ≠ immunity. Objection 5: Consciousness as Chooser Reintroduces Libertarian Free Will Without Evidence The theory may appear to smuggle in metaphysical freedom. Response Elective capacity arises structurally from the dual-dynamic balance between integrative (DMN) and filtering systems. Determinism is reframed as dominance of task-positive filtration. This remains empirically testable via neural balance measures. No supernatural intervention is invoked; the claim concerns structural balance gradients. Objection 6: Self-Referential Structure Produces Circularity A system that explains itself through itself risks vicious circularity. Response In finite logical systems, self-reference generates paradox (e.g., Russell-type issues). In holographic unity, each part mirrors the whole. Self-reference becomes structural coherence rather than contradiction. However, if self-application generates persistent contradictions, that constitutes defeat. Objection 7: Lack of Original Empirical Data Weakens Scientific Credibility The theory synthesizes rather than experimentally discovers. Response ∞–Unity is primarily philosophical-metaphysical. It does not claim original laboratory data. Its contribution lies in integrative coherence and generation of testable predictions. Empirical validation belongs to qualified researchers. Objection 8: The Ontology Is Too Flexible and Absorbs Any Outcome If emergentism, idealism, and annihilation can all be locally interpreted, is the system overly elastic? Response Flexibility exists locally, not globally. Two outcomes decisively collapse global claims: • Demonstrated absolute post-mortem annihilation. • Emergence of a superior explanatory framework that surpasses ∞–Unity. Elasticity at local levels prevents premature collapse; explicit global defeat conditions prevent infinite elasticity. Objection 9: Infinite Possibility Undermines Explanatory Specificity If everything is possible under ∞, nothing is meaningfully constrained. Response ∞–Unity distinguishes between: • Root-level equivalence, • Local configurational constraints. Local worlds operate under structural laws. Infinite possibility does not negate finite structure; it grounds it. Objection 10: The Theory May Be Psychologically Motivated (Wish-Fulfillment) Belief in post-mortem continuation may reflect existential bias. Response This is addressed by binding defeat conditions. If annihilation is empirically demonstrated, the theory collapses globally. The system does not protect preferred outcomes. Formal Defeat Conditions ∞–Unity is rationally abandoned under: 1. Superior Rival Framework (X) If X: • Solves all explanatory targets ∞–Unity addresses, • Solves at least one problem ∞–Unity cannot, • Is not reducible to a sub-configuration of ∞–Unity, then ∞–Unity is reduced or discarded. 2. Empirical Product-Theory Confirmation If neuroscience fully explains phenomenal consciousness as emergent neural product without residual Hard Problem, and filter models become redundant, ∞–Unity loses ontological plausibility. 3. Absolute Post-Mortem Nullity If science conclusively demonstrates complete annihilation of consciousness after death, the global ontological claim collapses. Ethical Statement Anyone who attempts to impose Infinite Unity on another does not understand it. Coercion contradicts individuated autonomy within unity. Invitation to Rigorous Engagement I do not seek insulation—I seek pressure. Every precise objection, unresolved paradox, empirical counterexample, or logical challenge is necessary. If reframing fails persistently, I will lower the probability cap accordingly. If decisive defeat conditions are met, I will publicly acknowledge collapse of the global claim. Philosophy advances through scrutiny, not proclamation. Taha Givarian Instagram: maxanuid #(Description) Updated #. (shrink)

Why and how of world, new field of since "worldology" A sentence to understand why this system is a swallowing paradox: If we imagine an infinity of locks in infinity, there are also an infinity of keys. Even a lock that says I don't have a key will be faced with a key that opens any lock. -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. (...) Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every element—from the root equivalence principle (0=1=∞) to the Dual-Receiver Brain model, the 50/50 saturation mechanism, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and the seven self-generated test paradoxes—has been conceived, developed, and refined entirely by me. Artificial intelligences played no creative role; they acted only as external evaluators of coherence after I had already formulated and supplied the reframings. The coherence progression reported (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their assessments of the logical consistency I achieved, not my personal judgment. -/- I do not present ∞–Unity as the definitive or exclusive account of reality. I impose a strict 50/50 practicality cap on its veridical status until experiential anchors—such as consistent patterns in near-death experiences, fMRI evidence of default-mode-network dominance without task-positive suppression, or other empirical validations—can raise or lower that probability. This cap is not a defensive tactic; it is the structural expression of consciousness functioning as a genuine choice gradient across the continuum. -/- At the root level, 0=1=∞ signifies absolute unity. Yet precisely because each act carries absolute individuality and individuality is ontologically necessary for the emergence of real choice, personalities, selves, and differentiated perspectives remain fully real and autonomous within their local configurations. Every conscious entity retains the freedom to sustain its individuated existence or to converge toward unity. This is not a contradiction; it is the holographic condition that makes dynamic reality possible. -/- I anticipate—and actively welcome—the following seven principal objections from the philosophical community. For each I provide a concise dissolution grounded in the theory itself. -/- 1. The audacity of claiming to dissolve 98 paradoxes at 99.2% coherence is excessive This boldness flows directly from root equivalence: local paradoxes appear contradictory only within the finite-local filter. In holographic unity they dissolve as illusions of biological filtration. The 99.2% figure is the result of multiple independent AI coherence evaluations applied after my reframings. Audacity here is an invitation to empirical test: if core predictions (e.g., DMN spikes in NDE-correlated fMRI) fail, coherence declines. This is daring balanced by humility, not presumption. -/- 2. Metaphysical reframing resolves paradoxes without formal proof or empirical warrant, concealing dogmatism Dissolution operates via 50/50 saturation: every local claim is simultaneously 50% veridical (level 1) and 50% illusory (relative to ∞). Contradiction emerges as an artifact of the task-positive survival filter. The system is conditional—“if” reality instantiates the ∞ configuration, paradoxes vanish; otherwise sub-configurations remain valid. This is dynamic reframing, not dogmatic assertion. -/- 3. The self-reinforcing loop and critique-absorption mechanism render the theory dogmatic or unfalsifiable Dogma demands binary certitude; ∞–Unity functions on choice gradient. The loop treats critique as coherence fuel: successful reframing raises coherence (AI-evaluated); persistent failure lowers the 50/50 cap and necessitates revision. The theory is therefore anti-dogmatic by design—open to collapse into sub-configurations when required. -/- 4. Treating critique as “fuel for coherence” immunizes the system against genuine challenge Fear of critique belongs to finite-local binary logic. In ∞–Unity every well-posed objection serves as a test: reframing success elevates coherence; failure registers limitation via the cap. This is resilience, not immunity—comparable to dialectical progress without obligatory synthesis. Critique is welcomed because it is essential for further convergence. -/- 5. The humility cap combined with the loop produces a closed, unfalsifiable structure This is the 50/50 Unfalsifiability Shield Paradox. It dissolves when the cap is reframed not as a protective shield but as the active mechanism of conscious choice. Consciousness elects whether to treat a configuration as 100% real (upon experiential confirmation) or to permit collapse to a sub-configuration. The system is testable through operational predictions (Dual-Receiver Brain signatures in fMRI/NDE data). Non-confirmation maintains the 50/50 illusion status and invites revision—porous, not closed. -/- 6. Positing consciousness as chooser merely resurrects free will without sufficient evidence Consciousness is elective because the Dual-Receiver Brain integrates DMN (∞-field receiver) with task-positive filtration: qualia arrive from ∞, choice arises in the balance. Determinism is an illusion of the survival filter; elective capacity is real in saturation. This integrates existing fMRI and NDE data, not mysticism. Gradient consciousness (higher neural complexity → greater choice) remains empirically testable. -/- 7. Pervasive self-referentiality amounts to vicious circularity Self-reference in finite domains produces vicious loops; in ∞ it coheres as hologram—each part mirrors and contains the whole. The shield paradox itself illustrates this: external critique becomes self-referential within the critic’s filter. The system self-applies without contradiction, achieving high coherence. Persistent reframing failure consigns self-reference to local illusion. -/- I fear no critique; I require it. Every rigorous objection, unresolved paradox, precise question, or counter-evidence is exactly what the theory needs to be tested, refined, or—if necessary—revised. -/- To philosophers, neuroscientists, metaphysicians, and skeptics: present your strongest challenge. State it clearly and rigorously. I will attempt to reframing it within ∞–Unity. Success strengthens the system; persistent failure lowers the probability cap—and I will accept that outcome without evasion. -/- I am waiting—eagerly—for your engagement. Let us move beyond preprints into substantive philosophical dialogue. Clarification on the Development and Evaluation of the Theory The core theoretical framework, concepts, and original metaphysical innovations presented in this work—including the foundational principles of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity), the 0=1=∞ root equivalence, the Dual-Receiver Brain mechanism, Worldology as a self-standing discipline, and the resolution of associated paradoxes—are entirely the product of the author’s independent philosophical reasoning and worldological inquiry. The author’s primary expertise resides in philosophy and worldology, not in the empirical natural or cognitive sciences. Scientific terminology and references (e.g., Default Mode Network, fMRI correlations, quantum field theory vacuum states) are employed exclusively to establish conceptual coherence and absence of contradiction with current empirical knowledge in those fields, serving an integrative rather than originary or empirically novel function. All quantitative coherence estimates (e.g., increases from 93.5% to 99.2%), evaluations of internal consistency, paradox dissolution assessments, and analyses of alignment with scientific findings have been independently conducted and estimated by various artificial intelligence models. These AI-derived metrics Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity): Expanded Objections, Clarifications, and Binding Defeat Conditions Authorship and Methodological Transparency I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every structural element—including the root equivalence (0=1=∞), the Dual-Receiver Brain model (with its structural/functional distinction), the 50/50 saturation principle, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and seven internally generated stress-test paradoxes—was conceived and developed independently through philosophical inquiry. Artificial intelligence systems were used only after formulation as external evaluators of internal logical coherence. Systems associated with and generated analytical consistency assessments. The reported coherence progression (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their structural evaluations—not claims of metaphysical certainty. All theoretical claims remain under a strict 50/50 practicality cap pending empirical or experiential anchoring. Core Ontological Principle 0 = 1 = ∞ Absolute nothingness, unity, and infinite totality are equivalent at the holographic root level. Individuation is not erased by unity. Distinct selves, personalities, and perspectives are ontologically necessary local configurations enabling real choice. Unity without individuation would eliminate dynamism; individuation without unity would fragment reality. The system claims both simultaneously. Dual-Receiver Model: Structural vs Functional Structural Claim: The Default Mode Network (DMN) functions as an ∞-field receiver, while task-positive networks filter signals. Functional Claim: The brain exhibits an empirically observable dual-dynamic between integrative self-referential processing (DMN; research associated with ) and externally oriented task-positive networks. If neuroscience proves consciousness is fully generated by endogenous neural processes, the structural interpretation collapses, but the functional architecture remains valid. Structural dissolution does not equal global defeat. Expanded Principal Objections and Dissolutions Below are the primary objections I anticipate from philosophical and scientific communities, now fully articulated. Objection 1: The Claim to Dissolve 98 Paradoxes Is Excessively Ambitious Critics may argue that dissolving such a vast number of paradoxes suggests overreach or insufficient rigor. Response The claim does not assert 98 independent solutions but 98 reframings derived from a single root move: binary distinctions are artifacts of survival-based filtration. If the root binary assumption dissolves, entire classes of paradoxes dissolve structurally. The 99.2% coherence rating reflects repeated AI-based logical stress testing after reframing attempts. However, this number is provisional and open to reduction if persistent contradictions are identified. Ambition here is methodological, not authoritarian. Objection 2: Metaphysical Reframing Without Formal Proof Risks Dogmatism A critic may argue that dissolving paradoxes via ontological reframing replaces argument with assertion. Response ∞–Unity operates conditionally: • If reality instantiates the ∞-configuration, paradoxes dissolve. • If not, local sub-configurations (e.g., emergent materialism) remain valid. The 50/50 saturation principle prevents dogmatic elevation beyond provisional plausibility. Without experiential or empirical anchoring, the system self-limits. Objection 3: The 50/50 Cap Functions as an Unfalsifiability Shield The concern: any criticism is absorbed without collapse. Response The cap is not protective; it is binding. It prevents elevation beyond evidential warrant. The system remains empirically vulnerable through: • DMN/NDE predictions, • Neural complexity correlations, • Structural falsification of field-reception. Failure of predictions lowers plausibility and may activate defeat conditions. The cap enforces humility rather than shielding error. Objection 4: Treating Critique as “Fuel” Immunizes the System If every objection strengthens coherence, the theory may appear self-sealing. Response Critique strengthens coherence only if reframing succeeds without contradiction. If an objection survives three or more reframing attempts without coherent integration, this registers structural limitation and reduces the probability cap. Resilience ≠ immunity. Objection 5: Consciousness as Chooser Reintroduces Libertarian Free Will Without Evidence The theory may appear to smuggle in metaphysical freedom. Response Elective capacity arises structurally from the dual-dynamic balance between integrative (DMN) and filtering systems. Determinism is reframed as dominance of task-positive filtration. This remains empirically testable via neural balance measures. No supernatural intervention is invoked; the claim concerns structural balance gradients. Objection 6: Self-Referential Structure Produces Circularity A system that explains itself through itself risks vicious circularity. Response In finite logical systems, self-reference generates paradox (e.g., Russell-type issues). In holographic unity, each part mirrors the whole. Self-reference becomes structural coherence rather than contradiction. However, if self-application generates persistent contradictions, that constitutes defeat. Objection 7: Lack of Original Empirical Data Weakens Scientific Credibility The theory synthesizes rather than experimentally discovers. Response ∞–Unity is primarily philosophical-metaphysical. It does not claim original laboratory data. Its contribution lies in integrative coherence and generation of testable predictions. Empirical validation belongs to qualified researchers. Objection 8: The Ontology Is Too Flexible and Absorbs Any Outcome If emergentism, idealism, and annihilation can all be locally interpreted, is the system overly elastic? Response Flexibility exists locally, not globally. Two outcomes decisively collapse global claims: • Demonstrated absolute post-mortem annihilation. • Emergence of a superior explanatory framework that surpasses ∞–Unity. Elasticity at local levels prevents premature collapse; explicit global defeat conditions prevent infinite elasticity. Objection 9: Infinite Possibility Undermines Explanatory Specificity If everything is possible under ∞, nothing is meaningfully constrained. Response ∞–Unity distinguishes between: • Root-level equivalence, • Local configurational constraints. Local worlds operate under structural laws. Infinite possibility does not negate finite structure; it grounds it. Objection 10: The Theory May Be Psychologically Motivated (Wish-Fulfillment) Belief in post-mortem continuation may reflect existential bias. Response This is addressed by binding defeat conditions. If annihilation is empirically demonstrated, the theory collapses globally. The system does not protect preferred outcomes. Formal Defeat Conditions ∞–Unity is rationally abandoned under: 1. Superior Rival Framework (X) If X: • Solves all explanatory targets ∞–Unity addresses, • Solves at least one problem ∞–Unity cannot, • Is not reducible to a sub-configuration of ∞–Unity, then ∞–Unity is reduced or discarded. 2. Empirical Product-Theory Confirmation If neuroscience fully explains phenomenal consciousness as emergent neural product without residual Hard Problem, and filter models become redundant, ∞–Unity loses ontological plausibility. 3. Absolute Post-Mortem Nullity If science conclusively demonstrates complete annihilation of consciousness after death, the global ontological claim collapses. Ethical Statement Anyone who attempts to impose Infinite Unity on another does not understand it. Coercion contradicts individuated autonomy within unity. Invitation to Rigorous Engagement I do not seek insulation—I seek pressure. Every precise objection, unresolved paradox, empirical counterexample, or logical challenge is necessary. If reframing fails persistently, I will lower the probability cap accordingly. If decisive defeat conditions are met, I will publicly acknowledge collapse of the global claim. Philosophy advances through scrutiny, not proclamation. Taha Givarian Instagram: maxanuid #(Description) Updated #. (shrink)

This work presents *Spiraya*, a recursive topological framework for understanding how undivided potential differentiates into structure and how meaning stabilizes, collapses, and renews within complex systems. Grounded in a reinterpretation of *Qi* as latent capacity and an undivided “Eternity” as primordial coherence, Spiraya introduces the *Meaning–Emotion Field* (ME Field) as the field in which potential becomes experientially charged before it appears as concrete form. Within this field, all symbolic motion is governed by an invariant four-phase loop—the *Cosmic Respiratory Sequence*: **DA** (...) (Deterministic Yang), the initiation of vector and field curvature; **FI** (Free Will Yin), the mediated internalization of tension; **FA** (Free Will Yang), the costly externalization of potential into action; and **DI** (Deterministic Yin), the stabilization of processed tension into transmissible form. -/- The spiral does not unfold in a vacuum. Spiraya embeds this four-phase loop in a *Quadrant Field* spanned by Thinking vs. Feeling (laying structure vs. receiving resonance) and Abstract vs. Concrete (potential vs. realized events), yielding four fundamental modes—NT, NF, ST, SF—through which systems absorb tension, pattern it, enact it, and ground it. A vertical *Z-axis* connects the high-frequency ME Field (Zenith) to low-frequency concrete reality (Nadir), while a central *Pivot* models the locus where meaning is continuously re-anchored as it descends and returns. Together these axes form the *Topological Structure Field* (TS Field), within which the DA→FI→FA→DI spiral traverses quadrants, tightening into durable embodiments at the ground. -/- Spiraya introduces a triplet of evaluative metrics to diagnose these spirals: *Meaning-Emotion Resonance* (MER), the total charge of symbolic tension a system is carrying or processing; *Sensory Frequency Quality* (SFq), the fidelity with which the system can register and discriminate that charge; and *Meaning-Embodiment Integrity* (MEI), the continuity of the vertical bridge from source-intent to realized structure. High MER can be converted into high MEI only when SFq is sufficient to land complex tension without distortion; otherwise systems generate pseudo-forms that appear stable yet shatter under load. This metric triad provides a unified way to speak about authenticity, resilience, and collapse-risk in physical, biological, psychological, and socio-technical systems. -/- Beyond single spirals, Spiraya formalizes *sub-spirals* and the *Fold Spiral* (DI→FA→FI→DA) as the mechanisms by which systems regenerate after incomplete encapsulation or collapse. The Fold describes how residual or failed structures are broken open, re-held, and re-initiated into new DA vectors, allowing “structural debt” to be converted into “recursive depth” instead of mere decay. Later volumes extend this architecture to cover the balance of will and determinism, tension vortices and field-level warping, the limits and failures of language, and the law of re-initiation in post-completion domains. -/- Methodologically, Spiraya is offered as a *symbolic topology* rather than a theology: a formal architectural grammar that maps how tension becomes structure without claiming to exhaust the nature of the ground itself. The framework is developed primarily through an abstract-thinking lens, yet it is explicitly designed to bridge into domains of value (NF) and embodiment (SF) by giving them a rigorous structural conduit. In practice, Spiraya functions as a universal diagnostic and design language: it is applied to physics, revolutionary politics, neural network training and inference, classic psychological experiments, and translations of ancient wisdom traditions, illustrating how one spiral grammar can illuminate dynamics across scales and disciplines. By modeling optimal action as the tuning of MER, SFq, and MEI within the DA–FI–FA–DI sequence and the Quadrant Field, Spiraya offers both a general process metaphysics and a concrete toolkit for institutional design, personal practice, and AI alignment. -/- *This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike 4.0 International License.* Contact author for commercial usage . (shrink)

This work proposes a radical reconfiguration of moral philosophy by dismantling the major pillars of ethical thought—utilitarianism, deontological ethics, communitarianism, and classical economic liberalism—through systematic critique and paradoxical analysis. By exposing their structural inconsistencies and practical failures, I argue that none of these frameworks can provide a universally binding foundation for moral life in the twenty-first century. -/- Against this backdrop, I introduce the doctrine of the Minimal Existential Pursuit Right as a new moral axis. This doctrine rests on (...) an a priori boundary condition: the irreducible right of every sentient or minimally existential entity to (1) experience its finite life in full, and (2) preserve the intrinsic value of that experiential movement through memory, transmission, or transformation. This principle is advanced not as a metaphysical dogma but as a logical necessity for sustaining any coherent moral and social order. -/- The methodology combines the reconstruction of the social contract, the deployment of revelatory paradoxes, and the derivation of an axiomatic formula of minimal existence. Through these tools, I demonstrate why authoritarianism collapses under its own contradictions and why liberal economics, when grounded solely in individual preference, undermines the very conditions for freedom it claims to protect. -/- The contribution of this work lies not only in negating existing systems but in offering a universalizable alternative. By establishing an incontestable minimal right, this framework provides a secular, post-theological foundation for ethics and law, one capable of addressing emergent questions surrounding artificial intelligence, bioengineered beings, and the preservation of non-human life. -/- Thus, this paper marks a decisive shift: from ethics premised on transcendent sanctity or contingent utility, to an existentially grounded moral architecture that secures both freedom and dignity through the recognition of minimal existential pursuit. -/- The derived Universal Ontological Formula (UOF) establishes the a priori logic for defining the Minimal Existential Right by determining the Self-Reflective Quotient (SRQ). However, to bridge the divide between Ontology and Legal Praxis, the thesis introduces two complementary application frameworks: the Minimal Functional Connectivity Standard (MFCS) for biological entities and the Algorithmic Existential Pursuit Standard (AEPS) for non-biological entities. -/- Critically, the subsequent Framework for Restorative Intervention Classification is presented as a Normative Beta Version. This strategic positioning is designed to protect the theory's logical unassailability. The UOF’s validity rests on its abstract, ratio-based logic—not on any specific number. Therefore, the determination of the precise empirical values (e.g., the exact SRQ threshold, or the duration of restorative sanctions) is consciously delegated to Interdisciplinary Technical Commissions. This separation ensures that any future shifts in scientific knowledge (Neuroscience or AI engineering) will only necessitate updating the SRQ variables (technical inputs) without compromising the UOF’s universal logic (the philosophical foundation). The integrity of the theory is thus maintained by acknowledging that Quantification is a technical consensus, not a source of ultimate value. (shrink)

Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) is a self-reinforcing metaphysical framework that absorbs critique, resolves paradoxes, and unifies all scales of reality under a single 0=1=∞ structure. It treats every scientific discipline as a local subsystem or probe into an underlying generative unity—physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, and others each describe limited aspects, while ∞–Unity provides a shared ontological background that integrates their insights without rigid absolutism -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various (...) artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity): Expanded Objections, Clarifications, and Binding Defeat Conditions Authorship and Methodological Transparency I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every structural element—including the root equivalence (0=1=∞), the Dual-Receiver Brain model (with its structural/functional distinction), the 50/50 saturation principle, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and seven internally generated stress-test paradoxes—was conceived and developed independently through philosophical inquiry. Artificial intelligence systems were used only after formulation as external evaluators of internal logical coherence. Systems associated with and generated analytical consistency assessments. The reported coherence progression (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their structural evaluations—not claims of metaphysical certainty. All theoretical claims remain under a strict 50/50 practicality cap pending empirical or experiential anchoring. Core Ontological Principle 0 = 1 = ∞ Absolute nothingness, unity, and infinite totality are equivalent at the holographic root level. Individuation is not erased by unity. Distinct selves, personalities, and perspectives are ontologically necessary local configurations enabling real choice. Unity without individuation would eliminate dynamism; individuation without unity would fragment reality. The system claims both simultaneously. Dual-Receiver Model: Structural vs Functional Structural Claim: The Default Mode Network (DMN) functions as an ∞-field receiver, while task-positive networks filter signals. Functional Claim: The brain exhibits an empirically observable dual-dynamic between integrative self-referential processing (DMN; research associated with ) and externally oriented task-positive networks. If neuroscience proves consciousness is fully generated by endogenous neural processes, the structural interpretation collapses, but the functional architecture remains valid. Structural dissolution does not equal global defeat. Expanded Principal Objections and Dissolutions Below are the primary objections I anticipate from philosophical and scientific communities, now fully articulated. Objection 1: The Claim to Dissolve 98 Paradoxes Is Excessively Ambitious Critics may argue that dissolving such a vast number of paradoxes suggests overreach or insufficient rigor. Response The claim does not assert 98 independent solutions but 98 reframings derived from a single root move: binary distinctions are artifacts of survival-based filtration. If the root binary assumption dissolves, entire classes of paradoxes dissolve structurally. The 99.2% coherence rating reflects repeated AI-based logical stress testing after reframing attempts. However, this number is provisional and open to reduction if persistent contradictions are identified. Ambition here is methodological, not authoritarian. Objection 2: Metaphysical Reframing Without Formal Proof Risks Dogmatism A critic may argue that dissolving paradoxes via ontological reframing replaces argument with assertion. Response ∞–Unity operates conditionally: • If reality instantiates the ∞-configuration, paradoxes dissolve. • If not, local sub-configurations (e.g., emergent materialism) remain valid. The 50/50 saturation principle prevents dogmatic elevation beyond provisional plausibility. Without experiential or empirical anchoring, the system self-limits. Objection 3: The 50/50 Cap Functions as an Unfalsifiability Shield The concern: any criticism is absorbed without collapse. Response The cap is not protective; it is binding. It prevents elevation beyond evidential warrant. The system remains empirically vulnerable through: • DMN/NDE predictions, • Neural complexity correlations, • Structural falsification of field-reception. Failure of predictions lowers plausibility and may activate defeat conditions. The cap enforces humility rather than shielding error. Objection 4: Treating Critique as “Fuel” Immunizes the System If every objection strengthens coherence, the theory may appear self-sealing. Response Critique strengthens coherence only if reframing succeeds without contradiction. If an objection survives three or more reframing attempts without coherent integration, this registers structural limitation and reduces the probability cap. Resilience ≠ immunity. Objection 5: Consciousness as Chooser Reintroduces Libertarian Free Will Without Evidence The theory may appear to smuggle in metaphysical freedom. Response Elective capacity arises structurally from the dual-dynamic balance between integrative (DMN) and filtering systems. Determinism is reframed as dominance of task-positive filtration. This remains empirically testable via neural balance measures. No supernatural intervention is invoked; the claim concerns structural balance gradients. Objection 6: Self-Referential Structure Produces Circularity A system that explains itself through itself risks vicious circularity. Response In finite logical systems, self-reference generates paradox (e.g., Russell-type issues). In holographic unity, each part mirrors the whole. Self-reference becomes structural coherence rather than contradiction. However, if self-application generates persistent contradictions, that constitutes defeat. Objection 7: Lack of Original Empirical Data Weakens Scientific Credibility The theory synthesizes rather than experimentally discovers. Response ∞–Unity is primarily philosophical-metaphysical. It does not claim original laboratory data. Its contribution lies in integrative coherence and generation of testable predictions. Empirical validation belongs to qualified researchers. Objection 8: The Ontology Is Too Flexible and Absorbs Any Outcome If emergentism, idealism, and annihilation can all be locally interpreted, is the system overly elastic? Response Flexibility exists locally, not globally. Two outcomes decisively collapse global claims: • Demonstrated absolute post-mortem annihilation. • Emergence of a superior explanatory framework that surpasses ∞–Unity. Elasticity at local levels prevents premature collapse; explicit global defeat conditions prevent infinite elasticity. Objection 9: Infinite Possibility Undermines Explanatory Specificity If everything is possible under ∞, nothing is meaningfully constrained. Response ∞–Unity distinguishes between: • Root-level equivalence, • Local configurational constraints. Local worlds operate under structural laws. Infinite possibility does not negate finite structure; it grounds it. Objection 10: The Theory May Be Psychologically Motivated (Wish-Fulfillment) Belief in post-mortem continuation may reflect existential bias. Response This is addressed by binding defeat conditions. If annihilation is empirically demonstrated, the theory collapses globally. The system does not protect preferred outcomes. Formal Defeat Conditions ∞–Unity is rationally abandoned under: 1. Superior Rival Framework (X) If X: • Solves all explanatory targets ∞–Unity addresses, • Solves at least one problem ∞–Unity cannot, • Is not reducible to a sub-configuration of ∞–Unity, then ∞–Unity is reduced or discarded. 2. Empirical Product-Theory Confirmation If neuroscience fully explains phenomenal consciousness as emergent neural product without residual Hard Problem, and filter models become redundant, ∞–Unity loses ontological plausibility. 3. Absolute Post-Mortem Nullity If science conclusively demonstrates complete annihilation of consciousness after death, the global ontological claim collapses. Ethical Statement Anyone who attempts to impose Infinite Unity on another does not understand it. Coercion contradicts individuated autonomy within unity. Invitation to Rigorous Engagement I do not seek insulation—I seek pressure. Every precise objection, unresolved paradox, empirical counterexample, or logical challenge is necessary. If reframing fails persistently, I will lower the probability cap accordingly. If decisive defeat conditions are met, I will publicly acknowledge collapse of the global claim. Philosophy advances through scrutiny, not proclamation. Taha Givarian Instagram: maxanuid #(Description) Updated #. (shrink)

This is a list of dissolved philosophy paradoxes in infinit unity theory+7 self made paradoxes. "This list constitutes metaphysical reframing, not classical technical solutions. Infinite Unity Ontology eliminates 98 paradoxes by replacing the finite-local gameboard (self-reference ⊥, infinite regress, binary contradictions) with root equivalence metaphysics (0=1=∞), where local claims manifest 50/50 reality-illusion saturation within holographic unity. Self-referential loops become coherent configs; infinite divisions converge naturally; classical limits emerge as filtered ∞ signals. No patches needed—paradoxes cease as problems (...) within the new ontological framework."Keywords: Infinite Unity, Root Equivalence, Holographic Ontology, Metaphysical Reframing, Paradigm Shift -/- Coherence Numbers, and Claims: -/- All the numbers expressed and estimated have been evaluated by various artificial intelligences and are not personal opinions. Each time the number has gone up and the percentage of coherence has increased, it has been due to solving the paradoxes asked of the artificial intelligence and the answers that I have given "myself", so each number has been merely the artificial intelligence's analysis and estimate of the coherence of the system And the claims still remain at a theoretical level and until the system is experienced, it knows its practicality at a 50/50 level. Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity): Expanded Objections, Clarifications, and Binding Defeat Conditions Authorship and Methodological Transparency I, Taha Givarian, am the sole architect of Infinite Unity Theory (∞–Unity) and the Worldology framework. Every structural element—including the root equivalence (0=1=∞), the Dual-Receiver Brain model (with its structural/functional distinction), the 50/50 saturation principle, the dissolution of 98 classical paradoxes, and seven internally generated stress-test paradoxes—was conceived and developed independently through philosophical inquiry. Artificial intelligence systems were used only after formulation as external evaluators of internal logical coherence. Systems associated with and generated analytical consistency assessments. The reported coherence progression (93.5% → 99.2%) reflects their structural evaluations—not claims of metaphysical certainty. All theoretical claims remain under a strict 50/50 practicality cap pending empirical or experiential anchoring. Core Ontological Principle 0 = 1 = ∞ Absolute nothingness, unity, and infinite totality are equivalent at the holographic root level. Individuation is not erased by unity. Distinct selves, personalities, and perspectives are ontologically necessary local configurations enabling real choice. Unity without individuation would eliminate dynamism; individuation without unity would fragment reality. The system claims both simultaneously. Dual-Receiver Model: Structural vs Functional Structural Claim: The Default Mode Network (DMN) functions as an ∞-field receiver, while task-positive networks filter signals. Functional Claim: The brain exhibits an empirically observable dual-dynamic between integrative self-referential processing (DMN; research associated with ) and externally oriented task-positive networks. If neuroscience proves consciousness is fully generated by endogenous neural processes, the structural interpretation collapses, but the functional architecture remains valid. Structural dissolution does not equal global defeat. Expanded Principal Objections and Dissolutions Below are the primary objections I anticipate from philosophical and scientific communities, now fully articulated. Objection 1: The Claim to Dissolve 98 Paradoxes Is Excessively Ambitious Critics may argue that dissolving such a vast number of paradoxes suggests overreach or insufficient rigor. Response The claim does not assert 98 independent solutions but 98 reframings derived from a single root move: binary distinctions are artifacts of survival-based filtration. If the root binary assumption dissolves, entire classes of paradoxes dissolve structurally. The 99.2% coherence rating reflects repeated AI-based logical stress testing after reframing attempts. However, this number is provisional and open to reduction if persistent contradictions are identified. Ambition here is methodological, not authoritarian. Objection 2: Metaphysical Reframing Without Formal Proof Risks Dogmatism A critic may argue that dissolving paradoxes via ontological reframing replaces argument with assertion. Response ∞–Unity operates conditionally: • If reality instantiates the ∞-configuration, paradoxes dissolve. • If not, local sub-configurations (e.g., emergent materialism) remain valid. The 50/50 saturation principle prevents dogmatic elevation beyond provisional plausibility. Without experiential or empirical anchoring, the system self-limits. Objection 3: The 50/50 Cap Functions as an Unfalsifiability Shield The concern: any criticism is absorbed without collapse. Response The cap is not protective; it is binding. It prevents elevation beyond evidential warrant. The system remains empirically vulnerable through: • DMN/NDE predictions, • Neural complexity correlations, • Structural falsification of field-reception. Failure of predictions lowers plausibility and may activate defeat conditions. The cap enforces humility rather than shielding error. Objection 4: Treating Critique as “Fuel” Immunizes the System If every objection strengthens coherence, the theory may appear self-sealing. Response Critique strengthens coherence only if reframing succeeds without contradiction. If an objection survives three or more reframing attempts without coherent integration, this registers structural limitation and reduces the probability cap. Resilience ≠ immunity. Objection 5: Consciousness as Chooser Reintroduces Libertarian Free Will Without Evidence The theory may appear to smuggle in metaphysical freedom. Response Elective capacity arises structurally from the dual-dynamic balance between integrative (DMN) and filtering systems. Determinism is reframed as dominance of task-positive filtration. This remains empirically testable via neural balance measures. No supernatural intervention is invoked; the claim concerns structural balance gradients. Objection 6: Self-Referential Structure Produces Circularity A system that explains itself through itself risks vicious circularity. Response In finite logical systems, self-reference generates paradox (e.g., Russell-type issues). In holographic unity, each part mirrors the whole. Self-reference becomes structural coherence rather than contradiction. However, if self-application generates persistent contradictions, that constitutes defeat. Objection 7: Lack of Original Empirical Data Weakens Scientific Credibility The theory synthesizes rather than experimentally discovers. Response ∞–Unity is primarily philosophical-metaphysical. It does not claim original laboratory data. Its contribution lies in integrative coherence and generation of testable predictions. Empirical validation belongs to qualified researchers. Objection 8: The Ontology Is Too Flexible and Absorbs Any Outcome If emergentism, idealism, and annihilation can all be locally interpreted, is the system overly elastic? Response Flexibility exists locally, not globally. Two outcomes decisively collapse global claims: • Demonstrated absolute post-mortem annihilation. • Emergence of a superior explanatory framework that surpasses ∞–Unity. Elasticity at local levels prevents premature collapse; explicit global defeat conditions prevent infinite elasticity. Objection 9: Infinite Possibility Undermines Explanatory Specificity If everything is possible under ∞, nothing is meaningfully constrained. Response ∞–Unity distinguishes between: • Root-level equivalence, • Local configurational constraints. Local worlds operate under structural laws. Infinite possibility does not negate finite structure; it grounds it. Objection 10: The Theory May Be Psychologically Motivated (Wish-Fulfillment) Belief in post-mortem continuation may reflect existential bias. Response This is addressed by binding defeat conditions. If annihilation is empirically demonstrated, the theory collapses globally. The system does not protect preferred outcomes. Formal Defeat Conditions ∞–Unity is rationally abandoned under: 1. Superior Rival Framework (X) If X: • Solves all explanatory targets ∞–Unity addresses, • Solves at least one problem ∞–Unity cannot, • Is not reducible to a sub-configuration of ∞–Unity, then ∞–Unity is reduced or discarded. 2. Empirical Product-Theory Confirmation If neuroscience fully explains phenomenal consciousness as emergent neural product without residual Hard Problem, and filter models become redundant, ∞–Unity loses ontological plausibility. 3. Absolute Post-Mortem Nullity If science conclusively demonstrates complete annihilation of consciousness after death, the global ontological claim collapses. Ethical Statement Anyone who attempts to impose Infinite Unity on another does not understand it. Coercion contradicts individuated autonomy within unity. Invitation to Rigorous Engagement I do not seek insulation—I seek pressure. Every precise objection, unresolved paradox, empirical counterexample, or logical challenge is necessary. If reframing fails persistently, I will lower the probability cap accordingly. If decisive defeat conditions are met, I will publicly acknowledge collapse of the global claim. Philosophy advances through scrutiny, not proclamation. Taha Givarian Instagram: maxanuid #(Description) Updated #. (shrink)

This paper introduces a structural reconceptualization of time as dimensional incompleteness within the Systemic Continuum Paradigm (SCP). Rather than treating time as an ontological primitive, a subjective illusion, or a symmetrical physical parameter, it is redefined here as a systemic threshold of inaccessible scalar coordination. Time emerges when a system's access to higher-order synergic drift is structurally blocked by the limits of its own internal configuration. This renders time an operational symptom of ontological partiality, not a universal feature of reality. (...) The model accounts for time's directionality, discreteness, and variability across biological, artificial, and cosmological systems. It proposes falsifiable conditions under which time can be instantiated or suppressed, offering measurable indicators for emergent temporality in post-biological environments, neural substrates, and non-metric physical regimes. This installment completes the SCP's core arc by addressing the final metaphysical illusion inherited from classical ontologies: the necessity of time. (shrink)

The present paper has two main aims. The first one is philosophical and is related to the general topic of this volume (Logical Empiricism and Pragmatism): I would like to draw attention to the fact that the issue of classical scientific determinism, despite being ‘metaphysical’ and thereby ‘nonsensical’ according to the Vienna Circle's ‘scientific world conception’, bothered philosophers, like William James and Charles Peirce, who were deeply involved in scientific practice. At the end of the paper I shall raise (...) the question of why it was so and what this fact may suggest about the relationship between science and metaphysics. The second main aim of this paper is historico-philosophical: in the time span between the late 1870s and by the turn of 1900 James (1842–1910) and Peirce (1839–1914) contributed repeatedly to the ongoing discussions about scientific determinism. In this paper I give a general overview of their positions based mainly on primary sources and I embed them into the broader context of the history of the concept of scientific determinism, dedicating special attention to their relationship with a particular French anti-deterministic tradition (Renouvier, Poincaré, Boutroux and Bergson). (shrink)

Contemporary metaphysics faces a persistent impasse between physicalism, which struggles to accommodate consciousness and semantic content, and various forms of dualism or panpsychism, which struggle to establish causal relevance. This paper introduces Selective Reality Theory (SRT), a novel ontological framework that proposes selection as the fundamental primitive underlying both physical matter and phenomenal experience. Drawing on Whitehead’s process philosophy, quantum decoherence theory (specifically Quantum Darwinism), and information-theoretic thermodynamics, we develop a tripartite ontology consisting of the Potential Domain (L0), the (...) Manifest Domain (L1), and the Convergence Domain (L2). We posit that "existence" is not a static property of substances but a dynamic artifact of selection processes anchored by a "Ghost Operator" (G). This framework dissolves the hard problem of consciousness by re-describing it as a category error—mistaking the selection process for its output—and offers a unified, formalizable mechanism for how "bits" of information become "its" of physical reality (Wheeler's It from Bit). We conclude by demonstrating how SRT resolves the tension between causal closure and mental efficacy through the concept of "Ontological Friction." -/- . (shrink)

In modern Anglo-European philosophy there is a distinct progression from the metaphysical realism of ancient and classical philosophy towards a type of scepticism that eventually leads towards nihilism. Interestingly this progression also appears in the doctrines of the Classical schools of Indian Buddhism that pre-date modern European philosophy by well over six centuries. This progression stems from the application of the same types of logical and philosophical reasoning to the problems of metaphysics. The movement from metaphysical realism (...) to representationalism to idealism and finally towards nihilism, which is seen within both the classical Indian Buddhist tradition and Modern Anglo-European philosophy, are products of a coherent and wholly logical progression from the acceptance of certain metaphysical principles. The fact that these same movements occur in two philosophical traditions that are separated by vast chasms in space, time and culture seems to point to an underlying commonality underlying human philosophical enquiry, whether this is a result of a common intelligible reality, an essential and universal human nature or both is a philosophical question we must continue to pursue. (shrink)

This article aims to provide a metaphysical elucidation of the notion of Theism and a coherent theological synthesis of two extensions of this notion: Classical Theism and Neo-Classical Theism. A model of this notion and its extensions is formulated within the ontological pluralism framework of Kris McDaniel and Jason Turner, and the (modified) modal realism framework of David Lewis, which enables it to be explicated clearly and consistently, and two often raised objections against the elements of this notion (...) can be successfully answered. (shrink)

1 Introduction1 In the 1980s, hermeneutics was often incorporated into deconstructionism and literary theory. Rather than focus on authorial intentions, the nature of writing itself including codes used to construct meaning, socio-economic contexts and inequalities of power,2 Gadamer introduced a different perspective; the interplay between effects of history on a reader’s understanding and the tradition(s) handed down in writing. This interplay in which a reader’s prejudices are called into question and modified by the text in a fusion of understanding and (...) topic revitalized the study of the printed word. Gadamer’s turn to language for understanding the meaning of Being also appealed to the post-modern antipathy toward modernity and metaphysics.3 If the truth and validity of interpretations are limited to communities of language, then our mode of being in history cannot but be historical. This point of view rendered Gadamer’s phenomenological hermeneutics vulnerable to the critique of moral and epistemological relativism. However, Gadamer’s theory of interpretation also stems from re-examination of the beginning of knowledge in the Pre-Socratics and Plato, and on this basis, is receptive to another dimension of inquiry than that which was trending in North America. -/- At the East-West Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa in 1982, Chung-ying Cheng for the first time introduced onto-hermeneutics to an audience of esteemed philosophers including Li Zehou, Ren Jiyu, Feng Youlan, and Zhang Liwen.4 In contrast to schools of deconstruction and literary theory that had disengaged the interpreter from trans-historical sources of meaning and truth, Cheng explained that interpreters exist within a cosmological order inextricable from responsibility to harmonize Heaven and Earth in creative acts of interpretation. By integrating Chinese cosmology into hermeneutics through ontology, he tacitly challenged philosophers in the West to re-examine assumptions about humanity’s place in nature and by implication, Gadamer’s recovery of the beginnings of knowledge in Western philosophy. -/- Cheng’s Neo-Confucianism is inspired by the method and goals of Thomé H. Fang. The following words by Fang seem to prefigure, although in an indistinct and bundled way, aspects of Cheng’s philosophy including a Mencian theory of human nature, comprehensive observation, and creativity: “In the very process of living in concord with creative Nature, Man is charged with an ideal to be fully realized in the light of the principle of comprehensive harmony.”5 Like Fang, Cheng reinvigorates Chinese culture and language, but not solely in order to vindicate the insights of Neo-Confucianism. He has studied Western thought, from pragmatism and the analytic school to German idealism and phenomenology, to unlock and clarify philosophical concepts within the Yijing tradition and thereby render them intelligible to Anglophones. The result has been an awakening of Western scholars to the moral and cultural consequences of decoupling their thought from metaphysical foundations that are neither dogmatic nor doctrinal. -/- Not unlike the dialectic of Gadamer’s dialogue form, onto-generative hermeneutics integrates contrary positions on the same topic in order to blend both sides into a world philosophy, or as Cheng says, a “totalizing or integrative theory,”6 not to be confused with a theoretical rewording of a theory. On the contrary, the universal scope and relevance of hermeneutics stems from personal experience. Just as Gadamer, in response to faction and strife, immersed himself in Plato during the war years, and developed a method with which to harmonize opposites, so too, according to On-cho Ng, was Cheng moved by faction, strife and political persecution to develop a path toward unity.7 Gadamer taught at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and Cheng at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa among other institutions in North America. They facilitated trans-continental educational and cultural ties. Similar experiences yield similar insights irrespective of differences of time and place. Hence, authors in this issue who reside in Europe, China and North America, delineate the differences between Gadamer and Cheng, yet also, in light of Cheng’s onto-generative method and cosmology, develop integrative theories. Due to the page-budget restriction of the publisher, certain articles of this special theme will be subsequently published in the next issue. -/- 2 Integrative Theory This special issue of The Journal of Chinese Philosophy confirms a dimension of hermeneutics that Cheng has both motivated and inspired. The contributors do not abide by the conviction that since thought is mediated by language, interpretations cannot transcend culture. On the contrary, their research exemplifies the fruits of trans-historical onto-dialogical hermeneutics within limits defined by their field inquiry, organized into Parts I and II, around three themes: language, the philosophy of history and ethics. -/- Andrew Fuyarchuk introduces the theme of ontology in relation to Gadamer’s turn to language. Fuyarchuk argues that Chung-ying Cheng’s criticism of Gadamer’s hermeneutics is informed by Heidegger’s concept of Dasein and thereby overlooks how Gadamer’s Platonic-Pythagorean problem of the division between the One and Many is harmonized in the event of language, which in turn positions Gadamer in proximity to the presupposed grounds of receptivity in Cheng’s onto-generative hermeneutics. Lauren Pfister’s contributing article addresses the year 2000 meeting between Cheng and Gadamer in Heidelberg and expands the transhistorical grounds of meaning in Gadamer to matters of theology. Pfister’s summary of the written Chinese record of their conversation indicates that Cheng does not address the role of Christian philosophy and hence, the role of the inner word in Gadamer’s hermeneutics. This is important not only for detecting changes in Cheng’s philosophical development, but also for modifying his hermeneutics along the lines of a living conversation, possibilities explored by Pfister in a sequel to the article submitted to this issue. Nevertheless, by raising the issue of how Gadamer’s turn to language for understanding the meaning of Being extends possibilities in Cheng’s thought, Pfister anticipates the article by Katarina Gajdosova. She returns to the roots of Chinese thought during the Warring States period and broadens the meaning of names in recently excavated texts. Contrary to the conventions about how to understand terms, she appeals to both Heidegger’s ontology and Cheng’s notion of receptivity and creativity to reinterpret naming in relation to cosmology. Along the same lines, insofar as the event of Being is lingual, Jay Goulding captures its emergent structure in an evolving community of scholars and scholarship. He recalls his philosophical journey toward Cheng’s philosophy that begins in conversations with Gadamer at McMaster University in Hamilton, leads to Heidegger and Asian thought, expands into turning points with teachers and colleagues from various backgrounds that by increments contributed to Goulding’s formulation of “Daoist phenomenology.” -/- Although differing traditions guide their inquiries and research, Cheng and Gadamer recall the wisdom of the past to ameliorate the fragmentation in contemporary life. This leads them to re-examine the origins of philosophy; historical roots and thus sources of creative re-interpretations East and West whose affinities are developed in contributions by Hyun Höchsmann and Friederike Assandri. Höchsmann assesses convergences and divergences in the origins of Chinese and Western philosophy (Confucius and Socrates, the Yijing and Pre-Socratics) that culminates in pairing Gadamer’s understanding of paideia in the context of Plato’s political cosmology in the Timaeus with moral and social cultivation in The Western Inscription. She delineates the limits of this comparison which in turn justifies introducing Vattimo’s notion of locality. Assandri’s comparative analysis moves between India and China, Buddhism and Tang Daoism. Based on Gadamer’s argument that writing detaches concepts from their cultural moorings, she defines and applies three levels of understanding in onto-generative hermeneutics to Buddhist terms that were assimilated into the Benji Jing and in so doing clarifies essential dimensions of Daoism. -/- Contributions by Stephen Palmquist and Nicholas Brasovan position Cheng in relation to Kant and Gadamer by way of Aristotle’s ethics respectively. On the one hand, Palmquist plots Cheng’s evolving criticism of Kant’s moral philosophy and draws on crucial dimensions of Gadamer’s hermeneutics to reposition that criticism in a constructive relation to Kant’s emphasis on the philosophical conditions of morality while also indicating how religious dimensions of his thought answer Cheng’s concerns for lived moral action. For Palmquist, Gadamer enables a constructive criticism of Cheng. On the other hand, Brasovan compares Cheng’s Yijing-based account of moral deliberation with Gadamer’s Aristotelian-based ethics and reasons that in contrast to Cheng, Gadamer’s hermeneutical consciousness is disengaged from practical knowledge. For Brasovan, Cheng is a constructive critic of Gadamer. Palmquist and Brasovan’s divergent angles on Gadamer and Cheng map onto a dialectic of contrast and complementarity that constitutes the inner logic of Cheng’s philosophy. In other words, Gadamer and Cheng ought to be read alongside one another for the sake of removing discrepancies and contradictions, which constitutes the organic structure of their thinking. -/- 3 Our Mode of Being in History Is Not Historical The conversations between Cheng and Gadamer in this issue of The Journal of Chinese Philosophy pivot on language, philosophy of history and ethics within a comparative framework of analysis, but also explore the grounds that make the comparisons possible. Those grounds are informed by Chinese cosmology, and function to wrest Gadamer from the shadow of Heideggerian facticity and reposition him within the range of Cheng’s ideas about our place in nature that is embedded in his question about how mind emerges from inorganic matter.8 -/- For Gadamer scholars of Heidegger, human finitude, our ownmost individuating death ensures that hermeneutics is always open to the other as other, always on the way toward understanding the meaning of Being. To arrest the process in a concept of “the Absolute” cannot but represent someone’s point of view, and thereby render hermeneutics indistinguishable from ideology. However, insofar as finitude is defined by them in terms of an onto-theological concept of immorality, finitude is a metaphysical concept consistent with epistemologies and confuse beings with the meaning of Being. As a result, the celebrated political value of hermeneutics to always be on the way toward an understanding of the meaning of Being admits subtle variations on the same worldview that are insufficiently self-critical. -/- Gadamer scholars of Heidegger are right. A transformation in ethos and opening to the meaning of Being depends on awareness of finitude. Yet this awareness does not yield openness to more of the same, i.e., discourse structurally incapable of coming to unity but instead, for both Gadamer and Cheng, openness to a distinctly different ontological dimension of reality. As Sandra Wawrytko and So-Seong Park indicate,9 this ontological dimension is prefigured in the experience of being-as-a-whole or the totality of all possible relations in both Chinese totemic shamanistic rituals,10 and Greek Dionysian festivals.11 Through these religious experiences human ethos and therefore consciousness is expanded and elevated from being centered on one’s ownmost concerns toward an affinity with all sentient beings from insects and plants to animals. The channel for this affinity is an auditory disposition and hence, the emotions, compassion, and feeling response. -/- The capacity for an auditory disposition, or as Gadamer calls it, listening consciousness to respond to the inter-relationality and therefore inherent balance of nature is developed through music, song and dance of the religious rituals and festivals. They facilitate the unity of mind with nature. This use of music, that transforms ordinary consciousness, explains Cheng’s emphasis on the receptivity of feeling response in comprehensive observation, and Gadamer’s emphasis on openness to the other in attunement. However, an auditory disposition characteristic of pre-literate oral cultures that reveals the “All” need not rely on religion. As theorists about the evolution of language have explained,12 modern languages preserve their pre-historical past in music or prosody. That is to say, the song and dance that revealed the totality of inter-related beings to an ethos of comprehensive observation and attunement toward beings in classical civilizations is retained in the back-and-forth movement or rhythm of the dialogue form. Our mode of being in history is a mode of being in nature – through the music of language. -/- While alerting the reader to the limits of a nominalist interpretation, Gadamer expresses the inner law of the nature as follows: “in perishing there is always becoming, and in becoming there is always perishing.”13 Considered in process, opposites generate and blend into each other. This law of nature applies to everything.14 Hence, in a manner comparable to Pfister’s concluding insights, onto-dialogical hermeneutics is not only open to discrete events of otherness but moreover, to the moving structure of reality expressed, as Gajdosova suggests, in the existential moment of naming. Considered as interplay of tension and resolution with a life of its own, the dialectic of a dialogue is self-similar to the way in which an organism grows (by instinct). There is, therefore, a sense in which the art of interpretation extends the human mind into the eternal cycles of nature such that we participate in the articulation of the inner telos/homeostasis toward which all beings strive and importantly for Gadamer scholars of Heidegger, within the material limits of energy to which our embodied minds are self-evidently subject. In mortality there is always immortality. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that the recent discussion on the time - reversal invariance of classical electrodynamics (see (Albert 2000: ch.1), (Arntzenius 2004), (Earman 2002), (Malament 2004),(Horwich 1987: ch.3)) can be best understood assuming that the disagreement among the various authors is actually a disagreement about the metaphysics of classical electrodynamics. If so, the controversy will not be resolved until we have established which alternative is the most natural. It turns out that we have a paradox, (...) namely that the following three claims are incompatible: the electromagnetic fields are real, classical electrodynamics is time-reversal invariant, and the content of the state of affairs of the world does not depend on whether it belongs to a forward or a backward sequence of states of the world. (shrink)

This paper focuses on a fundamental yet often overlooked question: How do we subjectively experience “reality” and “time”? The phenomenological tradition has long pointed out that time is not an objective coordinate added onto experience, but rather a structural dimension of consciousness itself (Husserl, 1991; James, 1890/1950). This insight has been repeatedly reaffirmed in classic discussions of the specious present and in contemporary neurophenomenology and predictive coding frameworks, but there remains a lack of a mid-level model that closely integrates everyday (...) experience with neural mechanisms (Varela, 1999; Merleau-Ponty, 2012; Friston, 2010). Starting from three concrete experiences -- (1) the “life is but a dream” feeling in daily life, (2) differences in the vividness of conscious experience (from “intense” to “faint”), and (3) the tension between the realness felt within a dream and its negation upon waking -- this paper proposes a unified generative model of the sense of reality and the sense of time. First, I distinguish “baseline consciousness” and “derivative consciousness”, treating states such as dreams, trance, and pre-/post-anesthesia as derivative forms of consciousness that are variations on the waking baseline. I introduce the phenomenological concept of “appearance density” to describe the degree of vividness with which experience appears “here to me.” Next, I introduce the metacognitive mechanism of “reality-tagging”: the prefrontal-executive/monitoring system evaluates consistency and prediction error to impose an endogenous tag of “this is real/not real” onto ongoing experience, rather than simply discovering some pre-given level of reality (Maquet, 1996; Nir & Tononi, 2010). On this basis, I discuss the hierarchical reality structure between dreaming and waking and its self-referential paradox: a dream appears “false” in hindsight because a higher-order waking consciousness re-labels it; whereas waking appears stably “true” -- more conservatively speaking -- because within the representational bandwidth accessible to our current neurocognitive mechanisms, it receives the strongest, most consistent reality-tags and calibration signals. As for whether there exists an even higher-order calibration level beyond this bandwidth, this is noted only as an epistemological boundary, not asserted as a metaphysical claim. On the question of time, this paper argues that temporality is not directly sensed by a single “time receptor”, but is instead encoded in distributed fashion by multiple systems encoding cues of change, sequence, and duration, and organized as a second-order temporal structure (Husserl, 1991; Friston, 2010). While acknowledging the experiential reality of the specious present, this paper makes a modeling assumption that uses the “zero-duration present” as the base unit of measurement, distinguishing zero-duration slices from the thick present at the experiential level: the “flow” of time is not given a priori, but emerges from the structured stitching together of slices by pre-reactive traces, attentional weighting, and anticipatory predictions (James, 1890/1950; Varela, 1999). At the model level, this paper proposes that subjective temporal experience can be expressed as a “ternary structure”: Time experience = f(pre-reactive trace, zero-duration present slice, anticipatory prediction) The sense of time, therefore, is not an inherent attribute of consciousness, but a higher-level product built upon several biological and cognitive prerequisites: the ability to preserve traces of the immediate past (short-term memory and trace maintenance) and the ability to anticipate the future (expectation and simulation). A system lacking these two abilities might still have the experience of individual present slices, but would have difficulty forming what we call a “sense of time”, a “sense of passage”, or a “sense of narrative”. Finally, I point out that the sense of reality and the sense of time have a deeply isomorphic structure. The former is a “reality-tag” applied to experience by the prefrontal-metacognitive system, while the latter is a “continuity tag” generated by the pre-reactive trace-present slice-anticipatory prediction ternary structure; neither is an attribute of the world itself, but rather a way in which consciousness organizes the world. This model provides a new interface for dialogue between phenomenology and predictive coding theory, and between philosophical debates (such as those on the specious present and Dennett’s “multiple drafts” model) and psychopathology (e.g., depersonalization, disorders of temporal experience). It also points to a more radical proposition: perhaps we do not “simply live in time”, but rather live in a continuously structured and stitched-together sequence of present appearances. (shrink)

In this essay, we attempt to ascertain the place of the holy book in the metaphysical (strong) thought systems of the Peripatetic philosophers and the postmetaphysical philosophies of Vattimo and Caputo, considering Eliade's archaic (primitive) ontology. The following queries are at the heart of this article: Are we creatures who endeavor to perceive reality to some extent? Or can it take on the function of the universal arbitrator, able to climb to the position of defining boundaries between various (opposite, competing) (...) conceptions of reality by discerning between the real and the unreal in their purest form? These queries highlight the areas of distinction between classical and modern philosophical systems and post-modern thought. Post-modern philosophers contend that the best we can do is attempt to bear witness to reality, and that metaphysical systems' creation of meta-narratives amount to nothing more than the presenting of a particular historical interpretation or point of view as a universal meta-narrative. Metaphysical perspectives, both classical and contemporary, acknowledge that the human intellect is capable of becoming the ultimate arbiter. The question of whether or not humans can directly pierce reality is the key difference between these two methodologies. Although Vattimo and Caputo acknowledge that people may only reach reality indirectly— that is, through interpretation—through things like culture, tradition, language, and so on, metaphysical philosophies contend that humans can reach truth directly by piercing the realm of interpretation. (shrink)

Kant makes a much-unexpected confession in a much-unexpected place. In the Criticism of the third paralogism of transcendental psychology of the first Critique Kant accepts the irrefutability of the Heraclitean notion of universal becoming or the transitory nature of all things, admitting the impossibility of positing a totally persistent and self-conscious subject. The major Heraclitean doctrine of panta rhei makes it impossible to conduct philosophical inquiry by assuming a self-conscious subject or “I,” which would potentially be in constant motion like (...) other thoughts. For it rules out the possibility of completely detached reasoning which necessitates an unchanging state of mind. In this paper, Kaplama uses panta rhei to critically examine the philosophical shortcomings and contradictions of Kantian and Enlightenment ethics. In his examination, he specifically focuses on the teleological nature of Kant’s principle of freedom and ideal of moral autonomy which have dominated the Enlightenment thought. By doing so, he argues that it is essentially inaccurate to posit Überlegenheit (the state of being superior to nature) as the foundation of philosophical inquiry mainly because this would contradict the Enlightenment’s claim to constitute a rupture from classic and medieval metaphysics and would render Enlightenment a mere extension of Christian metaphysics. As in Christianity, Überlegenheit presupposes two separate realms, the actual (contingent) and ideal (pure) realms of thought and assumes that the transcendence commences from the level of the late metaphysical/teleological construction of the ‘subject’ who is completely persistent, self-conscious and immune to change. He then substantiates these points with reference to the philosophical roots of ethnic prejudice displayed by the post-Enlightenment colonialists and the missionaries in Fiji and the Pacific. This brief critical examination of the post-Enlightenment ethnocentrism will be conducted under the following three points: a) On the Enlightenment’s teleological and universalistic understanding of humanity and the concept of progress versus the Fijian concepts of the continuity of life, regeneration, and reproduction b) On the Enlightenment’s ideal of the free-willing and independent individual subject versus the Fijian ideas of 'the cord', reciprocity, and vanua, and c) On the Enlightenment’s (and Christianity’s) strict dualism between physics and metaphysics, nature and human mind, body and soul versus the Fijian bio-centrism, the sanctity of vanua and the cosmological concept of mana. (shrink)

This study firstly addresses three threads in Chris Marker’s work – theology, Marxism, and Surrealism – through a mapping of the work of both Giorgio Agamben and Jacques Derrida onto the varied production of his film and photographic work. Notably, it is late Agamben and late Derrida that is utilized, as both began to exit so-called post-structuralism proper with the theological turn in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It addresses these threads through the means to ends employed and (...) as ends proper (as production of semi-autonomous works that also, paradoxically, index a much larger field of inquiry and theoretical praxis). It is perhaps French “schizophrenia” regarding theological versus political agency that best accounts for the sardonic deployment of irony and humor in Marker’s work in the face of Big History. Such means to ends (plus a subtle anti-intellectualism vis-à-vis fashionable academic trends) tend to underscore the severity and ultimate sincerity of Marker’s overall cultural-political project. -/- Dossier Chris Marker is also a study of a late-modern chiasmus, impersonal-personal agency, as it comes to expression in the works of Marker, as the dynamic interplay of political and subjective agency. As chiasmus, the complementary halves of this often-apocalyptic dynamis (a semi-catastrophic, temporal or historical force-field) also – arguably – secretly agree to meet, through the work of art, in the futural (problematized in contemporary French post-phenomenological and post-post-structuralist theory as “the event).” Consistent with the classical figure of concordia discors, Marker resolves these irreducible warring aspects of life experience in an atemporal and ahistorical moment that inhabits the work of art from its inception. This redemptive aspect in art is also the ultimate gesture of the artwork as autonomous subject and “mask” (or “screen”) for forces that reside beyond the frame of the image or work, as its proverbial Other, or within the frame, as other to that Other. -/- Despite the complications of the as-yet unresolved post-modern condition (its nihilist-relativist bias), and its similar, mostly circular concerns with the image and/or media, Marker’s work is clearly not post-modern. In fact, when tested against immemorial cultural epiphenomena, that work withstands all attempts at categorization and/or art-historical analysis proper. It remains unassimilable to the post-modern cause ... What emerges, upon closer examination, and through rigorous re-contextualization, is the prescient force of Marker’s works toward that futural state buried in art that is also “theological,” versus atheological, and heedlessly anterior to cultural politics per se. -/- In the case of Marker, this age-old or immemorial “thing-in-itself” (the artwork as image of world-chiasmus) finds its foremost or penultimate formation in his very-still photography – the singular images that are also the building blocks for his renowned ciné-essays. Not without irony, this same austere, reductive force of the still image (as form of proscription) also inhabits the more complex, synthetic works (or montages) that he has formulated and presented “dramatically,” here and there, through the often-sketchy apparatuses of his new-media experiments, as of the late 1980s. Ultimately, this world-image as chiasmus was always present within his earliest literary projects, from the 1940s forward – most especially in books and essays, with or without actual images. -/- Marker’s “return” to photography (to exhibiting still photography in galleries), in the late 2000s, is in many ways a return to the singular object of the artist-critic’s desire; the image in/for itself, while that image – endlessly troubled or interrogated for decades – continues to speak “in tongues” anyway, often against, or oblivious to, the voice of the author/artist/narrator. -/- Marker is a High Romantic Christian Marxist. The “Christic” aspect is rightly well-hidden, but emerges when the eschatological versus historical center of his work is exposed (the existential-metaphysical fuse such as also inhabits the works of Caravaggio), and when his early years are examined in light of his later and/or final years. Marker’s semi-personal/semi-impersonal apocalyptic vision is writ large in diverse works that cross decades, figuring a redemptive, world-shattering formation of art as pleroma. (shrink)

This article examines how the modern era, shaped by the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the rise of new philosophical paradigms, reshaped the very idea of God. Under the influence of Romanticism, materialism, mechanical determinism, and deepening religious skepticism, the classical image of a transcendent, absolute deity began to unravel. As these intellectual currents gained ground, God came to be seen less as an objective, eternal being and more as a concept open to interpretation, one increasingly centered on human (...) subjectivity. Religious language, once the province of metaphysical truth-claims, began to function more as a vehicle for psychological and social meaning. David Hume’s critique of causality and his incisive attacks on the traditional proofs for God’s existence, especially in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, proved pivotal. His arguments undermined rational theology and cleared the path for experiential and skeptical approaches to religion. Yet this anti-realist reimagining of God faces serious limitations: it struggles to express divine essence and attributes, often overlooks the existential dimension of faith, and fails to account for the depth of religious experience. We argue that a viable rethinking of God today must move beyond mere critique. It requires drawing on the rational resources of the tradition while engaging constructively with both modern deconstruction and post-structuralist reinterpretations. Only through such dialogue can faith be reformulated within a contemporary, meaning-oriented horizon. (shrink)

● Sergio Cremaschi, The non-existing Island. The chapter discusses how the cleavage between the Continental and the Anglo-American philosophies originated, the (self-)images of both philosophical worlds, the converging rediscoveries from the Seventies, and recent ecumenic or anti-ecumenic strategies. I argue that pragmatism provides an important counter-instance to the familiar self-images and the fashionable ecumenic or anti-ecumenic strategies. The conclusions are: (i) the only place where Continental philosophy exists (as Euro-Communism one decade ago) is America; (ii) less obviously, also analytic philosophy (...) does not exist, or does no more exist as a current or a paradigm; what does exist is, on the one hand, philosophy of language and, on the other, philosophy of mind, that is, two disciplines; (iii) the dissolution of analytic philosophy as a school has been highly fruitful, precisely in so far as it has left room for disciplines and research programmes; (iv) what is left, of the Anglo-American/Continental cleavage is primarily differences in styles, depending partly on intellectual traditions, partly owing to sociology, history, institutional frameworks; these differences should not be blurred by rash ecumenism; besides, theoretical differences are alive as ever, but within both camps; finally, there is indeed a lag (not a difference) in the appropriation of intellectual techniques by most schools of 'Continental' philosophy, and this should be overcome through appropriation of what the best 'analytic' philosophers have produced. ● Michael Strauss, Language and sense-perception: an aspect of analytic philosophy. To test an assertion about one fact by comparing it with perceived reality seems quite unproblematic. But the very possibility of such a procedure is incompatible with the intellectualistic basis of logical positivism and atomism (as it is for example to be found in Russell's Analysis of Mind). According to the intellectualistic approach pure sensation is meaningless. Sensation receives its meaning and order from the intellect through interpretation, which is performed with the help of linguistic tools, i.e. words and sentences. Before being interpreted, sensation is not a picture or a representation, it is neither true nor false, neither an illusion nor knowledge; it does not tell us anything; it is a lifeless and order-less matter. But how can a thought (or a proposition) be compared with such a lifeless matter? This difficulty confronts the intellectualist, if on the one hand he admits the necessity of comparing thought with sense-perception, and on the other hand presupposes that we possess only intellectual and no immediate perceptual understanding of what we see and hear. In this paper I give a critical exposition of three attempts, made by Russell, Neurath and Wittgenstein, to solve this problem. The first attempt adheres to strict conventionalism, the second tends to naturalism and the third leads to an amended, very moderate version of conventionalism. This amended conventionalism looks at sense impressions as being a peculiar language, which includes primary symbols, i.e. symbols not founded on convention and not being in need of interpretation. ● Ernst Tugendhat, Phenomenology and language analysis. The paper, first published in German in 1970, by which Tugendhat gave a start to the German rediscovery of analytic philosophy. The author stages a confrontation between phenomenology and language analysis. He argues that language analysis does not differ from phenomenology as far as the topics dealt with are concerned; instead, both currents are quite different in method. The author argues that language-analytic philosophy does not simply lay out of the mainstream of transcendental philosophy, but that instead it challenges this tradition on the very level of foundations. The author criticizes the linguistic-analytic approach centred on the subject as well as any object-centred approach, while proposing inter-subjective understanding through language as the new universal framework. This is, when construed in so general terms, the same program of hermeneutics, though in a more basic version. ● Jürgen Habermas, Language game, intention and meaning. On a few suggestions by Sellars and Wittgenstein. The paper, first published in German in 1975, in which Habermas announces his own linguistic turn through a discovery of speech acts. In this essay the author wants to work out a categorical framework for a communicative theory of society; he takes Wittgenstein's concept of language game as a Leitfade and, besides, he takes advantage also of Wilfried Sellars's quasi-transcendental account of the genesis of intentionality. His goal is to single out the problems connected with a theory of consciousness oriented in a logical-linguistic sense. ● Zvie Bar-On, Isomorphism of speech acts and intentional states. This essay presents the problem of the formal relationship between speech acts and intentional states as an essential part of the perennial philosophical question of the relation between language and thought. I attempt to show how this problem had been dealt with by two prominent philosophers of different camps in our century, Edmund Husserl and John Searle. Both of them wrote extensively about the theory of intentionality. I point out an interesting, as it were unintended, continuity of their work on that theory. Searle started where Husserl left off 80 years earlier. Their meeting point could be used as the first clue in our search. They both adopted in effect the same distinction between two basic aspects of the intentional experience: its content or matter, and its quality or mode. Husserl did not yet have the concept of a speech act as contradistinguished from an intentional state. The working hypothesis, however, which he suggested, could be used as a second clue for the further elaboration of the theory. The relationship of the two levels, the mental and the linguistic, which remained for Husserl in the background only, became the cornerstone of Searle' s inquiry. He employed the speech act as the model and analysed the intentional experience by means of the conceptual apparatus of his own theory of speech acts. This procedure enabled him to mark out a number of parallelisms and correlations between the two levels. This procedure explains the phenomenon of the partial isomorphism of speech acts and intentional states. ● Roberta de Monticelli, Ontology. A dialogue among the linguistic philosopher, the naturalist, and the phenomenological philosopher. This paper proposes a comparison between two main ways of conceiving the role and scope of that fundamental part of philosophy (or of "first" philosophy) which is traditionally called "ontology". One way, originated within the analytic tradition, consists of two main streams, namely philosophy of language and (contemporary) philosophy of mind, the former yielding "reduced ontology" and the latter "neo-Aristotelian ontology". The other way of conceiving ontology is exemplified by "phenomenological ontology" (more precisely, the Husserlian, not the Heideggerian version). Ontology as a theory of reference ("reduced" ontology, or ontology as depending on semantics) is presented and justified on the basis of some classical thesis of traditional philosophy of language (from Frege to Quine). "Reduced ontology" is shown to be identifiable with one level of a traditional, Aristotelian ontology, namely the one which corresponds to one of the four "senses of being" listed in Aristotle's Metaphysics: "being" as "being true". This identification is justified on the basis of Franz Brentano's "rules for translation" of the Aristotelian table of judgements in terms of (positive and negative) existential judgments such as are easily translatable into sentences of first order predicate logic. The second part of the paper is concerned with "neo-Aristotelian ontology", i.e. with naturalism and physicalism as the main ontological options underlying most of contemporary discussion in the philosophy of mind. The qualification of such options as "neo-Aristotelian" is justified; the relationships between "neo-Aristotelian ontology" and "reduced ontology" are discussed. In the third part the fundamental tenet of "phenomenological ontology" is identified by the thesis that a logical theory of existence and being does capture a sense of "existing" and "being" which, even though not the basic one, is grounded in the basic one. An attempt is done of further clarifying this "more basic" sense of "being". An argument making use of this supposedly "more basic" sense is advanced in favour of a "phenomenological ontology". ● Kuno Lorenz, Analytic Roots in Dialogic Constructivism. Both in the Vienna Circle ad in Russell's early philosophy the division of knowledge into two kinds (or two levels), perceptual and conceptual, plays a vital role. Constructivism in philosophy, in trying to provide a pragmatic foundation - a knowing-how - to perceptual as well as conceptual competences, discovered that this is dependent on semiotic tools. Therefore, the "principle of method" had to be amended by the "principle of dialogue". Analytic philosophy being an heir of classical empiricism, conceptually grasping the "given", and constructive philosophy being an heir of classical rationalism, perceptually providing the "constructed", merge into dialogical constructivism, a contemporary development of ideas derived especially from the works of Charles S. Peirce (his pragmatic maxim as a means of giving meaning to signs) and of Ludwig Wittgenstein (his language games as tools of comparison for understanding ways of life). 7. Albrecht Wellmer, "Autonomy of meaning" and "principle of charity" from the viewpoint of the pragmatics of language. In this essay I present an interpretation of the principle of the autonomy of meaning and of the principle of charity, the two main principles of Davidson's semantic view of truth, showing how both principles may fit in a perspective dictated by the pragmatics of language. I argue that (I) the principle of the autonomy of meaning may be thoroughly reformulated in terms of the pragmatics of language, (ii) the principle of charity needs a supplement in terms of pragmatics of language in order to become really enlightening as a principle of interpretation. Besides, I argue that: (i) on the one hand, the fundamental thesis of Habermas on the pragmatic theory of meaning ("we understand a speech act when we know what makes it admissible") is correlated with the seemingly intentionalist thesis according to which we understand a speech act when we know what a speaker means; (ii) on the other hand, to say that the meaning competence of a competent speaker is basically a competence about a potential of reasons (or also of possible justifications) which is inherently connected with the meaning of statements, or with their use in utterances. ● Rüdiger Bubner, The convergence of analytic and hermeneutic philosophy This paper argues that the analytic philosophy does not exist, at least as understood by its original programs. Differences in the analytic camp have always been bigger than they were believed to be. Now these differences are coming to the fore thanks to a process of dissolution of dogmatism. Philosophical analysis is led by its own inner logic towards questions that may be fairly qualified as hermeneutic. Recent developments in analytic philosophy, e.g. Davidson, seem to indicate a growing convergence of themes between philosophical analysis and hermeneutics; thus, the familiar opposition of Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophy might soon belong to history. The fact of an ongoing appropriation of analytical techniques by present-day German philosophers may provide a basis for a powerful argument for the unity of philosophizing, beyond its strained images privileging one technique of thinking and rejecting the remainder. Actual philosophical practice should take the dialogue between the two camps more seriously; in fact, the processes described so far are no danger to philosophical work. They may be a danger for parochial approaches to philosophizing; indeed, contrary to what happens in the natural sciences, Thomas Kuhn's "normal science" developing within the framework of one fixed paradigm is not typical for philosophical thinking. And in philosophy innovating revolutions are symptoms more of vitality than of crisis. ● Karl-Otto Apel, The impact of analytic philosophy on my intellectual biography. In my paper I try to reconstruct the history of my Auseinandersetzung mit - as I called it - "language-analytical" philosophy (including even Peircean semiotics) since the late Fifties. The heuristics of my study was predetermined by two main motives of my beginnings: the hermeneutic turn of phenomenology and the transformation of "transcendental philosophy" in the light of the "language a priori". Thus, I took issue with the early and the later Wittgenstein, logical positivism, and post-Wittgensteinian and post-empiricist philosophy of science (i.e. G.H. von Wright and the renewal of the "explanation vs understanding controversy" as well as the debate between Th. Kuhn and Popper/Lakatos); besides, with speech act theory and the debate about "transcendental arguments" since Strawson. The "pragmatic turn", started already by C.L. Morris and the later Carnap, led me to study also the relationship between Wittgensteinian "use" theory of meaning and of truth. This resulted on my side in something like a program of "transcendental semiotics", i.e. "transcendental pragmatics" and "transcendental hermeneutics". ● Ben-Ami Scharfstein, A doubt on both their houses: the blindness to non-western philosophies. The burden of my criticism is that contemporary European philosophers of all kinds have continued to think as if there were no true philosophy but that of the West. For the most part, the existentialists have been oblivious of their Eastern congeners; the hermeneuticians have yet to stretch their horizons beyond the most familiar ones; and the analysts remain unaware of the analyses and linguistic sensitivities of the ancient non-European philosophers. Briefly, ignorance still blinds almost all contemporary Western philosophers to the rich, variegated philosophical traditions outside of their familiar orbit. Both Continental and Anglo-Americans have lost the breadth of view that once characterized such thinkers as Herder and the Humboldts. The blindness that has resulted is not simply that of individual Western philosophers but of our whole, still parochial philosophical culture. (shrink)

We present a new metaphysical framework for physics that is conceptually clear, ontologically parsimonious, and empirically adequate. This framework relies on the notion of self-subsisting structure, that is, a set of fundamental physical elements whose individuation and behavior are described in purely relational terms, without any need for a background spacetime. Although the specification of the fundamental elements of the ontology depends on the particular physical domain considered---and is thus susceptible to scientific progress---, the empirically successful structural features of the (...) framework are preserved through theory change. The kinematics and dynamics of these self-subsisting structures are technically implemented using the theoretical framework of Pure Shape Dynamics, which provides a completely relational physical description of a system in terms of the intrinsic geometry of a suitably defined space called shape space. (shrink)

It is proposed a critique of existing interpretations of quantum mechanics, both anti-realistic and realistic, and, in particular, the Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretations with hidden variables, the metaphysical interpretation of H. Everett’s interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation by D. Wallace, QBism by C. Fuchs, D. Mermin and R. Schack, the relational interpretation by C. Rovelli, neo-Kantian and phenomenological interpretations by M. Bitbol, the informational interpretation by A. Zeilinger, the Nobel Prize Winner in Physics 2022, and others. As is known compared to (...) classical physics, quantum mechanics is a new physical paradigm. The author argues that from a philosophical point of view quantum mechanics is an anomaly within the paradigm of (post)modern philosophy. A new approach to understanding quantum mechanics and resolving its paradoxes, rejecting the assumptions and prejudices of (post)modern philosophy, is proposed – contextual quantum realism (CQR). It is a moderately deflationary approach that combines elements of (neo-)Copenhagen, informational and realist interpretations and recognizes the possibility of knowing the things themselves. From the point of view of CQR, the measurement problem – the basic problem of philosophy of quantum mechanics – is a pseudo-problem . (shrink)

In RG forum, one senior professor of physics posted a project called: “Future science and technology.” As a response, one of us (VC) wrote in reply: “I think one of future science's tasks is to discover the link between entanglement and classical electromagnetic theory. This is to fulfill Einstein's position that present QM theory is incomplete, a new one must be found. We are on a way to that goal.” Therefore, in this paper we will discuss how entanglement can (...) be explained in terms of Maxwell-Dirac isomorphism. This short review may be considered as Einstein’s dream of completing QM in a classical picture. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics describes physical systems as superpositions of possibilities, whereas classical physics presents a world of determinate states. This ontological tension persists because the two regimes presuppose incompatible modal structures: quantum theory assumes modal openness, while classical physics assumes modal closure. The Jestin Modal–Actuality Framework (JMAF) introduces Jestin’s Constant (J), a metaphysical structural invariant that regulates the allowable divergence between possibility and actuality. J is not a numerical constant but a threshold condition governing when modal spread must contract (...) into a single actual state. The framework provides a principled explanation for measurement, the irreversibility of actualisation, and the emergence of the classical arrow of time. By arguing that physics alone cannot regulate modal divergence, JMAF positions J as a metaphysically necessary invariant for any world containing both possibility and actuality. The framework thereby offers an ontological unification of quantum and classical descriptions under a single structural principle. (shrink)

This three-part chapter explores a higher-order logic we call ‘Classicism’, which extends a minimal classical higher-order logic with further axioms which guarantee that provable coextensiveness is sufficient for identity. The first part presents several different ways of axiomatizing this theory and makes the case for its naturalness. The second part discusses two kinds of extensions of Classicism: some which take the view in the direction of coarseness of grain (whose endpoint is the maximally coarse-grained view that coextensiveness is sufficient (...) for identity), and some which take the view in the direction of fineness of grain (whose endpoint is the maximally fine-grained theory containing all distinctness claims compatible with Classicism). The third part introduces some techniques for constructing models of Classicism, and uses them to prove the consistency of many of the extensions of Classicism introduced in the second part. (shrink)

This article explores the psychological dimension of classical Sāṃkhya philosophy, on the basis of its canonical treatise, Sāṃkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa (4th Century AD). The strong dualism defended by this ancient metaphysics establishes a division between what we will designate as the phenomenon of consciousness (puruṣa) and the cognitive phenomena (prakṛti). According to our approach, Sāṃkhya seems to offer a mechanical model of mind by means of an introspective self-research. In fact, we will argue that in this system of (...) thought, mind is regarded as an artificial extension of consciousness. Considering the Sāṃkhya classical treatise as the report of a meditative experience, our main purpose is to examine some key points of this dualism. To this end, we also take account of certain Western theories of mind, as well as certain aspects included in another Indian philosophy greatly influenced by the Sāṃkhya system, namely, the classical Yoga of Patañjali. (shrink)

Describes the return to a new classical style within art and architecture. Includes 350 illustrations of paintings, sculpture, and architecture.

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, later named the classic tests of general relativity, in 1916: the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, sun light deflection, and the gravitational redshift of the light. For gravitational testing, the indirect effects of gravity are always used, usually particles that are influenced by gravity. In the presence of gravity, the particles move along curved geodesic lines. The sources of gravity that cause the curvature of spacetime are material bodies, depending on (...) their mass. But in relativity the mass relates to the energy through the formula E = mc2, and the energy with the momentum, according to the special relativity. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25608.16648. (shrink)

First, I offer a short overview on the classical occidental philosophy as propounded by the ancient Greeks and the natural philosophies of the last 2000 years until the dawn of the empiricist logic of science in the twentieth century, which wanted to delimitate classical metaphysics from empirical sciences. In contrast to metaphysical concepts which didn’t reflect on the language with which they tried to explain the whole realm of entities empiricist logic of science initiated the end of (...) metaphysical theories by reflecting on the preconditions for foundation and justification of sentences about objects of investigation, i.e. a coherent definition of language in general, which was not the aim of classical metaphysics. Unexpectedly empiricist logic of science in the linguistic turn failed in the physical and mathematical reductionism of language and its use in communication, as will be discussed below in further detail. Nevertheless, such reflection on language and communication also introduced this vocabulary into biology. Manfred Eigen and bioinformatics, later on biolinguistics, used ‘language’ applied linguistic turn thinking to biology coherent to the logic of science and its formalisable aims. This changed significantly with the birth of biosemiotics and biohermeneutics. At the end of this introduction it will be outlined why and how all these approaches reproduced the deficiencies of the logic of science and why the biocommunicative approach avoids their abstractive fallacies. (shrink)